Public Law 105-85 (U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 32, § 1520a) came into effect in 1997. It makes it illegal for the military to test biological and chemical weapons on people, and also makes it illegal to conduct peaceful experiments on people without their informed consent. It reads:
(a) The military can not test chemical or biological things on people
(c) Unless they have the informed consent of each individual in advance
(d) AND notice has been given to congress
(b) AND only if it's for peaceful purposes, defenses against weapons, or for purposes related to riot control
(c) Unless they have the informed consent of each individual in advance
(d) AND notice has been given to congress
(b) AND only if it's for peaceful purposes, defenses against weapons, or for purposes related to riot control
Notice I changed the order there. It does not change the meaning at all, I just wanted people to focus on (c) Informed consent required. Meaning they can only do it if they have your informed consent.
Nevertheless, you see things like this passed around on Facebook.
This is totally backwards. The law very specifically forbids the testing of biological weapons in any circumstances whatsoever. They can't do it even if they get your consent.
No only does it forbid the testing of biological and chemical weapons, it also forbids the testing of anything else at all, unless you've given your informed consent.
The worst thing that this law allows would be the testing of things like tear gas on you, but only if you specifically agree to let them do it, and congress has been notified of the study.
Various sites try to force their own interpretation of this law:
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...the-informed-consent-of-the-public/#more-1685
[bunk]So section (a) prohibits these cruel and inhumane chemical and biological tests on humans.
Then section (b) says that the prohibitions in section (a) do not apply to tests carried out for virtually any purpose. So section (b) completely negates the prohibitions of section (a).
In Other Words:
The U.S. government can test chemicals and biological agents on humans for nearly any purpose they desire.
[/bunk]Again this is backwards. Firstly it's not for "nearly any purpose", it quite specifically excludes chemical and biological weapons in any circumstance. And while (b) does give exceptions for (a) they have totally ignored that part (c) applies to part (b). Hence informed consent is always required.
But they go on to suggest that this is "just a trick"
[bunk]
Because you’ve already been “informed in advance” and you’ve already given your “consent”.
Because this “law” is publicly available for everyone to read, you have been “informed”. Because you have not contested it (that’s what the courts are for), you have provided your “consent”.
...
So, in reality, section (c) is legally useless. It does not provide any additional protection, it only “seems” to. Section (c)’s only purpose for being included in this law is deception, nothing more.
[/bunk]They arrive at this backwards conclusion by basically making up their own definition of "informed consent". They make the rather head-spinningly circular claim that adding a clause requiring consent means you don't actually have to get consent as the subject should know that you are supposed to have consent. But what is the actual definition and usage in law?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Informed Consent
The legality of informed consent is quite well studied, and nowhere does the backwards and circular usage of "awareness of the law requiring consent being equal to the consent that is required" even make an appearance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
And remember this is a law prohibiting testing on human subjects. Even if you gave your fully informed consent, and even if the test did not affect anyone else, then the test STILL has to satisfy all the other laws that govern such things.
Last edited: