In 1987, the CDC halted the evaluation of veteran exposure to Agent Orange, stating records were insufficient to determine the troops that had been exposed to the chemical. In the CDC’s own words: “It is unlikely, therefore, that military records can be used to identify a large number of US Army veterans who might have been exposed to [Agent Orange] in Vietnam.”

Instead, the CDC looked to the then-current levels of dioxin as an “indicator to exposure” – and concluded “that few Army ground troops had been heavily exposed to herbicides in Vietnam or elsewhere.” From this result the CDC decided against probing the study further.

I’m sure I’m going to be horrified by the whole study, but I felt I should bookmark it for future rants about (lack of) ethics in research, and the importance of scientists evaluating their life choices.

“The odds of having a child born with birth defects during or after the war were more than a third higher for veterans who say they handled, sprayed or were directly sprayed with Agent Orange than for veterans who say they weren’t exposed or weren’t sure.“

“When we [military scientists] initiated the herbicide program in the 1960s, we were aware of the potential for damage due to dioxin contamination in the herbicide. We were even aware that the military formulation had a higher dioxin concentration than the civilian version, due to the lower cost and speed of manufacture. However, because the material was to be used on the enemy, none of us were overly concerned.” (1988 letter from Clary to a member of Congress)