Joy Lu

The Ethical Cost of Biological Warfare in Unit 731

Vivisections without anesthesia, poisonous gas chambers, and subfreezing temperatures to induce frostbite were all cruel realities for several thousand Chinese, American, and Russian civilians in Japan’s Unit 731. One of the forgotten atrocities from World War II, Unit 731 was a project organized by the Japanese Imperial Army in which methods of biological warfare were tested. Researchers used human subjects to study biological weapons through methods such as injecting a pathogen in a test subject or providing contaminated water to Chinese communities and observing how the deadly diseases spread through a population.

The location in which these experiments occurred is an important part of explaining the necessity to research this topic. Although Unit 731 was a project created and organized by the Japanese, the actual headquarters of Unit 731 were in Manchuria, China which the Japanese occupied during World War II. It seems that they did not want to have an unethical site of experimentation on Japanese soil. It was based in the Pingfan district, and the city of Harbin, the largest city in Manchuria (“Nightmare In Manchuria”). Human experimentation began as early as fall of 1933 (Harris, Sheldon H).

General Shiro Ishii set up the secret laboratory and directed over 5000 Japanese soldiers and scientists in conducting these experiments (LaFleur, William R et al.). General Ishii is considered the Father of the Japanese Biological Warfare program, and he believed that biological and chemical warfare were crucial and powerful tools that Japan needed if it were to become a global power. His ideas of researching biological warfare became a reality as the Japanese government allowed him to set up a research facility (“Nightmare In Manchuria”). Ishii also recruited some of the best medical professionals in Japan to assist on the project. Many of the scientists were willing to help because they believed they were making advances in science and that they were serving their country in times of need.

Human experimentation is an important part of research to advance science. There are, however, standards to be set for human experimentation so that it is executed in a humane and ethical manner. The experiments conducted must have a strong and worthy cause to benefit society (Shahnazarian, Dalar). In addition, the researchers are not allowed to force the test subjects to do anything they did not want to do. Full consent of the test subject must be given without the coercion of the researchers. In Unit 731, the researchers never stopped to ask the test subject for consent or give them a choice. The researchers of Unit 731 failed to recognize the value and importance of human life, or chose to ignore its importance, or subordinated its importance to the life of their national community. Others suggest that they did not see their test subjects as people, and they justified their wrongdoings with the argument that similar tests are conducted on animals.

While ethically, Unit 731 was wrong, information discovered in Unit 731 is useful from a scientific perspective. The dilemma is whether the use the research findings from a study that killed thousands of people are ethical. In using the data collected, we as a society are acknowledging that the scientific data and information is more important than the lives of the humans who were killed, but we are also acknowledging the sacrifices the prisoners made—not by choice—which can result in lives of this generation to be saved. I study the scientific advancements and the conditions in which the use of the information is ethical. Finally, I compare the extrinsic and intrinsic values to determine that in Unit 731, the information gained to advance biological warfare was considered more important and more valuable than the cost of human life and unethical human experimentation. I explore how the Japanese violated human rights and the basic definition of what it means to be a person and treat others as people.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English, biological warfare is the use of toxins of biological origin or microorganisms as weapons of war. Biological warfare was an attractive means of warfare for the Japanese because they did not have to involve themselves in the fighting but still could inflict serious damage to the enemy. In addition, the Japanese were desperately trying to keep up with many of the powerful Western countries such as Germany and the United States that had already used biological warfare in previous wars such as World War I (Smart, Jeffery). Biological warfare was General Ishii’s specialty, and he was a strong advocate for improving this form of warfare. He spent years in Western countries, observing their techniques and methods for the most effective biological weapons, and when he returned to Japan, he attempted to emulate the advanced techniques (“Nightmare In Manchuria”). The Japanese conducted their research using humans as test subjects because the data for making advances in biological warfare could not be gathered any other way. New advances in biological warfare allowed for improved war techniques that can kill the enemy more efficiently. Seventy percent of the humans used

as test subjects were Chinese. By experimenting on Chinese civilians, the Japanese were able to kill or harm the enemy while simultaneously testing out and improving biological weapons to use on other, perhaps stronger, enemies such as Western powers like France, the United States and Great Britain.

The Japanese studied biological warfare by testing their weapons on various Chinese communities. They dropped food, clothes, and contaminated water at these sites, and observed how quickly the disease spread, and how many casualties occurred as a result. They tested at least 25 different disease causing agents during the time of Unit 731’s operation. One example was poisoning the water wells with diseases such as cholera and typhus (Drea, Edward et al.). This type of warfare, using disease strains and agents to kill people, is a subgroup of biological warfare called germ warfare. Additional examples of germ warfare included the use of planes to drop fleas infested with the plague over Chinese cities or using food such as wheat and rice contaminated with disease strains to kill civilians. Sometimes, within Unit 731 prison cells, the Japanese researchers would infect one prisoner with a specific disease and study how long it took for the disease to spread (Watts, Jonathan). Othertimes, the Japanese researchers disguised the disease causing agents as vaccinations, but instead injected strains of syphilis and gonorrhea into prisoners (Harris, Sheldon H). Through his research, Ishii found that dispersing the pathogens through water was more effective than dispersion through air. It is believed that the Unit 731 headquarters in Pingfan was producing over 300 kilograms of germs and bacteria at one point, and at the peak of the biological warfare research, the Japanese had enough bacteria to kill the entire population of the world several times (“Nightmare In Manchuria”).

In 1941, Ishii discovered an efficient method of transmitting the disease to his enemies without directly involving himself and putting himself and his men in harm’s way: the flea. The Japanese researchers took fleas and allowed them to bite rats that carried the plague, anthrax, cholera, and other lethal diseases. Once the flea carried the disease, the Japanese scientists used them as contaminants to make the clothes and food infectious and dangerous (“Nightmare In Manchuria” and Watts, Jonathan). Through his research, Ishii found that a flea that carried the infective strains of the plague were carriers for up to one month, and that the power of one bite was enough to infect victims and transmit the disease. As a result, the estimated number of deaths of Chinese civilians is between 400,000 and 580,000 people (Harris, Sheldon H). The information that the Japanese learned from the experiments conducted in Unit 731 were to be used in a planned attack on San Diego, California, in “Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night”, but before they could carry out the attack, the Japanese Army surrendered, finally ending World War II (“Nightmare In Manchuria” and Watts, Jonathan).

The ethics of biological warfare can be evaluated by comparing what was gained by perpetrator, the Japanese, to what was lost by the victim. The greater the gap between the two, the more unethical the issue becomes. The Japanese took something from these prisoners to benefit themselves at terrible expense to these prisoners. In addition, biological warfare and conducting research on biological warfare violates the Hippocratic Oath, an oath on the ethical obligations of a physician. The original oath was written in Greek around 5 th century BCE. Physicians who have taken the oath promise to “apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgement” and “keep them from harm and injustice.” Physicians also promise to “come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice (“Guides: Bioethics: Hippocratic Oath”).” The researchers who conducted research on test subjects clearly violate the Hippocratic Oath, using their knowledge and power of healing for the wrong purposes.

Informed consent is the most important factor when considering the ethics of human experimentation. According to the Office for the Protection of Research Subjects at the University of Southern California, informed consent is a voluntary agreement which goes beyond just signing a form. The human subject must understand the research being performed on them, and more importantly, the risks involved in this research (Shahnazarian, Dalar). In the case of Unit 731, the human test subjects were put into one of three situations. One, the Japanese secret police took civilians, mostly the poor and homeless Chinese people off the streets in Manchuria, against their will and transported them to the Unit 731 headquarters (“Nightmare in Manchuria” and Kristof, Nicholas). In addition, American, Chinese, and Russian prisoners of war, and individuals with mental but no physical defects were taken to Unit 731 for experimentation (Watts, Jonathan). Two, the Japanese researchers intentionally misled civilians to participate in their study by giving false information. The researchers would tell Chinese civilians that they had vaccines available, then inject strains of the diseases they were testing. In other cases, the Japanese researchers took advantage of the fact that the children were hungry and naïve by providing sweets laced with strains of disease. As a result, now vulnerable populations including children, women, and prisoners receive extra protections to ensure that they are not being taken advantage of (Shahnazarian, Dalar). And finally, three, the test subjects, usually in Chinese villages, were unknowingly subjected to the experiments.

Before Unit 731 and World War II, biological warfare was a relatively new and unpolished form of weaponry. The German and French were the first to use biological warfare during World War I. As a result, the Geneva Protocol was created in 1925. The Geneva Protocol only applied during international conflicts such as major wars, and it prohibited the use of chemical and biological weapons. Japan was one of the 196 states that ratified the treaty, but through the Unit 731 program, the Japanese did not honor the legisla-

tion (“Geneva Protocol”).

There was also additional legislation put in place to prevent unethical human experimentation practices after Unit 731, most notably the Nuremberg Code in response to the German experiments involving human test subjects. Drafted in 1947, the Nuremberg Code emphasized the importance of voluntary consent and conducting experiments that yielded beneficial results to society (“National Institute Of Health: Office Of History”). While many experts regard the Nuremberg Code as a landmark document, it has no legal force behind it. Still, it is a significant document that formally recognizes that doctors should avoid conducting painful practices that can hurt the human patients. In addition to the Nuremberg Code, in 1972, the Biological Weapons Convention was created; it prohibited the creation and stockpiling of biological and toxic weapons. Japan ratified this document along with 172 other states including Germany and the United States (“Biological Weapons – UNODA”).

Through the years, despite the treaties proposed, there have still been several cases of countries using biological warfare. So, what can stop countries from using biological warfare? The general trend in the drafting of the treaties by large groups of people is an important step in improving medical ethics because it unofficially holds the countries to a standard internationally agreed upon. While the intention of creating treaties is good, it is still not effective enough. The most effective solution presented thus far is incorporating a multitude of techniques to educate scientists about ethics and increase ethical awareness. Beyond drafting treaties, it is also important to start discussions about medical ethics in the scientific community and address medical ethics in scientific journals and mainstream media. The treaties are unenforceable by nature, so through education and the instilling of strong morals, people will be less inclined to turn to unethical scientific practices (Reyes, Daniel). Beyond focusing on the education of scientists on ethics, the role the government plays in many cases is just as important. Even though it is recognized that biological warfare is an unethical practice, if the practice is validated by the government, the scientists and workers involved will be less inclined to do the right thing. The people in power, typically those in the government, use the reasoning that the possession and use of biological weapons is acceptable when other countries also have similar weapons. This logic is flawed, because it would start a never ending cycle as countries try to best one another in the security dilemma. Instead, a standard must be set, and it has been multiple times through the Geneva Protocol, Nuremberg Code, and the Biological Weapons Code. What’s more important is that the countries need to honor these standards set by an international community. Just because biological warfare cannot be prevented does not make it ethical.

While I have concluded that using the information from an unethical project is ethical, some provisional boundaries need to be established to determine in what cases the information is ethical to use. Ideally, the scientific data would not be useful to advance biological warfare because no countries would have biological weapons. Unfortunately, it is likely that several countries still possess biological weapons in our modern society, even after understanding that the use of biological weapons is unethical. I have determined that the scientific data and information found as a result of the experiments conducted in Unit 731 can be used ethically to help people in the modern society. For example, one of the experiments in Unit 731 subjected the test subjects to extremely cold temperatures to induce frostbite. Afterwards, test subjects were studied and different forms of treatment were tested. The Japanese found the most effective form of treatment was “not rubbing the limb, which had been the traditional method, but rather immersion in water a bit warmer than 100 degrees (Kristof, Nicholas).” If the use of information after the events were over was considered unethical, then the new more effective form of treatment for frostbite would not be used. Would we, as a society, continue to use the old method of treating frostbite, even when we knew that there was a better form of treatment because the way that the information was obtained was unethical? If the information about the more effective treatment of frostbite was used in modern society, it would benefit thousands of people, potentially saving lives and improving quality of life in a way that would not have been possible without the findings of Unit 731. If the information can be used in a way that is justified to help all people in our world, its use is ethical. More importantly, the research findings should be available to all people, not just the Japanese, and the Japanese should acknowledge and make efforts to benefit the Chinese and Russian people, the groups that were targeted most in Unit 731.

There is no denying that there is some scientific value in the information that the Japanese discovered, although there is controversy as to whether the information should be used because of how the information was obtained (Steinberg, Jonathan). Based on the facts of Unit 731, it is ethical to use the information, if it will improve the lives of others in future generations. The Chinese, Russian and Americans have already endured through the suffering and the pain, and while it must be properly acknowledged that thousands of prisoners were treated terribly in order to obtain this information, the information and data is still here nonetheless. The only thing that these professionals can do to help others is to use the information and data uncovered through the experiments in Unit 731 to better treat patients and keep people healthy—all people, not only the citizens of the state who conducted the experiments. If scientists and doctors chose not to use the information from the experiments, the data for better or worse gets “wasted”. When put in perspective, using the data and information from Unit 731 to help others is actually an acknowledgement of the pain and suffering that all the prisoners went through. It would mean that they died for something that helped oth-

ers, even if it was through force and no consent.

The data gathered from the experiments in Unit 731 proved extremely valuable to the United States government, so much so, that they were willing to overlook all the terrible and cruel experiments conducted on the prisoners of war. After the Japanese surrendered, and World War II was officially over, many people felt that the Japanese needed to pay for what they had done. The Russians held the Khabarovsk trials, and a limited number of officials and workers were punished. The Americans secretly granted immunity to several of the top officials in Unit 731, including General Shiro Ishii (“Nightmare In Manchuria”). In exchange for the immunity, the Japanese provided the data they had gathered from the experiments they had conducted on the test subjects. The Americans promised immunity to the researchers if the Japanese shared the information with only America, and not the other allies—especially Russia—as the United States began to enter the Cold War (Gold, Hal). This negotiation implies the importance of the data that the Japanese gathered, despite the inhumane lengths they went to get this information. The Americans knew that they could not perform or repeat the unethical experiments that the Japanese had conducted, and they realized that the information the Japanese had found could not be determined anywhere else. This was a good and bad thing. While the information was valuable since it was the only one of its kind, there was also no way to replicate or recreate the experiments to confirm that the data and information was accurate. The actions of the American government show the value of the information gathered from these horrific experiments.

Is there a price or value of a human? This is a heavily disputed question, and I have found that there are two different values: extrinsic and intrinsic values. Perhaps what is most difficult to understand about the argument of ethical research practices on humans and the ethics of using the information afterwards is the comparison of extrinsic values to intrinsic values. My final goal was to determine the ethical cost of biological warfare. I have already determined that the bigger the gap between the perpetrators and the victims, the more unethical a practice is. But beyond just the extrinsic values, or pure scientific information, what is more important is the intrinsic value of a person, the core of human rights. The intrinsic value of a human gives us certain rights we have as humans. These rights should be, and for the most part are, protected by law. Moreover, the intrinsic value of a human is one of the biggest factors that make us human, distinguishing humans from other species. It is clear that the Japanese researchers gained physical scientific evidence from their experiments, something tangible and of great value. What is sometimes more difficult to understand is the intrinsic values that are lost from both the perpetrator and the victim. As the perpetrators, the Japanese researchers lost a sense of human rights, in particular the core meaning of what it means to be human and failed to recognize the value of human life. While the Japanese made the argument to use the information because they claim it benefits the greater good of humanity, this excludes the group of Chinese test subjects who died for the information. Moreover, it contradicts the purpose of the experiments because it carries the war into civilian populations, going against the theory of just and legal warfare. Why does one human get to determine and decide the fate of another human? This perpetuates the idea that the Japanese researchers did not see the test subjects as equals or humans. The victims were treated as inanimate and disposable objects. Through Unit 731, they were stripped of their identity as a human, and the Japanese took away what it means to be human. The intrinsic value of a human, and of mankind, was belittled.

After looking at how the prisoners unwillingly served as human guinea pigs for the Japanese and investigating what ethical research constitutes as, I have come to the conclusion that the experiments carried out in Unit 731 are unethical because the Japanese researchers made no effort to protect the human participants from pain and suffering, and there was no informed consent from any of the human test subjects. The Japanese researchers violated the core being of a person, treating the test subjects like objects instead.

Next, I determined that biological warfare was an unethical practice. I looked at the legislation on biological warfare, most notably the Geneva Protocol and the Nuremberg Code, and I determined that the respected ethicists and world leaders and diplomats were correct in their treaties to outlaw such dangerous, destructive warfare. I also looked at the gap between the perpetrator and the victim, those who benefit the most and those who hurt the most, and I determined that the gap was too big for such warfare to be conducted in the modern world.

My next argument sought to determine whether the use of the data and information found in the experiments of Unit 731 was ethical after the program had closed its’ doors. In order to answer this question, I first looked at the information that was obtained and considered to be of value in the medical community. I evaluated whether the data the Japanese found could have the potential to benefit people in today’s society and perhaps improve the lives of people who would not have an improved standard of living without the information from Unit 731. After I identified the data that benefit the most people, I looked at how the information from Unit 731 was negotiated with and used as a powerful tool in protecting the Japanese researchers. I determined that the useful information from Unit 731 should still be used in modern society if it can be used to improve the lives of people outside of the warfare aspect, and most notably useful in the healthcare aspect. The use of the information gained from the experiments can only be used under certain provisional boundaries. By using the information that resulted from their forced death and sacrifice to improve the lives of people now, the scientists can in a way pay tribute for what the prisoners died for. Based on the evidence, it is ethical for modern-day scientists to use the information, but

only if they use the information in a way that benefits and heals all people.

My last question focused on comparing the extrinsic and intrinsic values of a person to determine that the information gained to advance biological warfare was considered more important and valuable than the cost of human life in the case of Unit 731. I determined that the intrinsic value of a person and their self-worth is more valuable than the extrinsic value of a person should be. This is a difficult concept to understand because the intrinsic value of a person is not tangible and not something easily felt. I explore how the Japanese violated human rights and the basic definition of what it means to be a person and treat others as people.

One of my research mentors recently reminded me that research never ends. While conducting research on my current project, I realized there were several more questions that needed to be answered. An interesting topic for the future could be to compare nuclear warfare to biological warfare, not the specific act of using these weapons, but how the arguments for and against biological and nuclear weapons are crafted similarly and how they are compared.

Unit 731 left a legacy of pain for the thousands of people affected by the secret program. The unethical research conducted is infamous because of the live vivisections with anesthesia, injecting human test subjects with infectious disease strains, and intentionally spreading epidemics around Chinese cities to test biological weapons among other horrendous experiments. On the other hand, the information gained to advance biological warfare cannot be overlooked. The data proved valuable and important in the field of medicine. Important questions can be raised regarding the ethics of the experiments conducted and how the research and data was used after the program ended. While horrific, Unit 731 is an important event to remember, and the lives lost in the experimentation can be honored and used to improve modern medicine and help people.

“Biological | NTI”. Nti.Org, 2015. “Biological Weapons – UNODA”. Un.Org, 2016.

Drea, Edward et al. Researching Japanese War Crimes Records: Introductory Essays. 2006.

“Geneva Protocol”. U.S. Department Of State, 2016.

Gold, Hal. Unit 731. Tokyo, Yenbooks, 1996,.

“Guides: Bioethics: Hippocratic Oath, Modern Version”. Guides.Library.Jhu.Edu, 2016.

Harris, Sheldon H. Factories Of Death. London, Routledge, 1994,.

Kristof, Nicholas. “Unmasking Horror -- A Special Report.; Japan Confronting Gruesome War Atrocity”. New York Times, 2016.

LaFleur, William R et al. Dark Medicine. Bloomington, IN, Indiana University Press, 2007,.

“National Institute Of Health: Office Of History”. Nuremberg Code, 2016, https://history.nih.gov/ research/downloads/nuremberg.pdf.

“Nightmare In Manchuria”, director. Michael Brockhoff, 1998.

Reyes, Daniel. “Actionbioscience - Promoting Bioscience Literacy”. Actionbioscience.Org, 2003.

Ryall, Julian. “Human Bones Could Reveal Truth Of Japan’s ‘Unit 731’ Experiments”. The Telegraph, 2016.

Shahnazarian, Dalar. “Office For The Protection Of Research Subjects”. Usc.Edu.

Smart, J. History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: An American Perspective. Air University. Retrieved 29 October 2016.

Steinberg, Jonathan. “The Ethical Use Of Unethical Human Research”. New York University, Department Of Bioethics.

Watts, Jonathan. “Tokyo Victims Of Japan’s Notorious Unit 731 Sue”. The Lancet, vol 360, no. 9333, 2002, p. 628. Proquest.