JFK: Balancing Hope, Health, Scientific Discovery, and Environmental Responsibility
The COVID era has made all of us more conscious of the detrimental effects of unmonitored scientific experiments, effects that can be widespread and long-lasting. President John F. Kennedy is well-known for his championing the mission to land a man on the moon and as such is often remembered for his encouragement of scientific ventures and advancement. Indeed, he believed strongly that such scientific inquisitiveness had the potential to bring profound benefits to society:
The fact of the matter is that the management of our natural resources, instead of being primarily a problem of conserving them or saving them now require the scientific application of knowledge to develop new resources. We have come to realize to a large extent that resources are not passive. Resources are not merely something that was put here by nature. Research tells us that previously valueless materials, which ten years ago were useless, now can be among the most valuable natural resources of the United States, and that is the most significant fact in conservation. In the short space of eighteen years, almost twenty years, the wealth of this country has gone up 300 percent. In 1970, 1980, 1990, this country will be, can be, must be—if we make the proper decisions, if we manage our resources, both human and material, wisely, if we make wise decisions in the nation, the state, the community, and individually, if we maintain a vigorous and hopeful pursuit of life and knowledge, the resources of this country are so unlimited and science is expanding them so greatly, that all those people who thought forty years ago that this country would be exhausted in the middle of the century, will have been proven wrong—it’s going to be richer than ever.1
JFK even called out Thomas Malthus, who believed humans would eventually outgrow their resources:
Malthus argued a century and a half ago that man by using up all of his available resources would forever press on the limits of subsistence, thus condemning humanity to an indefinite future of misery and poverty. We can now begin to hope, and I believe know, that Malthus was expressing not a law of nature but merely the limitation then of scientific and social wisdom. The truth or falsity of his prediction will depend now, with the tools we have, on our own actions, now and in the years to come. The earth can be an abundant mother to all of the people that will be born in the coming years if we learn to use her with skill and wisdom, to heal her wounds, replenish her vitality and utilize her potentialities.2
President Kennedy’s determination to improve the human condition and his willingness to use every available tool to reduce poverty and raise living standards drew criticism from some quarters. The Wall Street Journal labeled him a “self-appointed enforcer of progress,”3 while Fortune criticized what it described as his promotion of the “universal lust for industrialization and growth.”4 But JFK was undeterred. At his last cabinet meeting before his death, JFK had scribbled and circled the word poverty seven times.5 According to presidential aide Arthur Schlesinger Jr., JFK’s two main points of focus in 1964 were to be poverty and the environment.
Although President Kennedy firmly believed in harnessing the power of science to improve society, he also recognized the need for careful oversight and understood the significant harm that could result if appropriate safeguards were absent. Thus, while President Kennedy deeply appreciated the transformative potential of science, he should also be remembered for the caution and responsibility with which he approached scientific progress. As he once quipped, “Life is extinct on other planets because their scientists were more advanced than ours.”6
JFK articulated these concerns during a speech to the National Academy of Sciences:
[We have a] responsibility to control the effects of our own scientific experiments. For as science investigates the natural environment it also modifies it and that modification may have incalculable consequences for evil as well as for good. … Science has the power, for the first time in history, now, to undertake experiments with premeditation which can irreversibly alter our biological and physical environment on a global scale. The problem is difficult because it is hard to know in advance whether the cumulative effects of a particular experiment will help or harm mankind. In the case of nuclear testing, the world is satisfied that radioactive contamination involves unnecessary risks and we are all heartened that more than one hundred nations have joined to outlaw testing in environments where the effects most directly threaten mankind. In other fields we may be less sure. … The government has the clear responsibility to weigh the importance of large-scale experiments to the advance of knowledge or to national security against the possibility of adverse or destructive effects.7
President Kennedy did not merely express these concerns in public speeches; he also formalized them in National Security Action Memorandum 235, which he signed on April 17, 1963. The memorandum is sufficiently significant that it is worth reproducing in full:
TO
The Secretary of State
The Secretary of Defense
The Secretary of the Interior
The Secretary of Commerce
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
The Chairman, Atomic Energy Commission
The Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
The Director, National Science Foundation
The Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
The Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
SUBJECT
Large-Scale Scientific or Technological Experiments with Possible Adverse Environmental Effects
I have approved the following policy guides governing the conduct of large-scale scientific or technological experiments that might have significant or protracted effects on the physical or biological environment. Experiments which by their nature could result in domestic or foreign allegations that they might have such effects will be included in this category even though the sponsoring agency feels confident that such allegations would in fact prove to be unfounded.
1. The head of any agency that proposes to undertake a large-scale scientific or technological experiment that might have significant or protracted effects on the physical or biological environment will call such proposals to the attention of the Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. Notification of such experiments will be given sufficiently in advance that they may be modified, postponed, or cancelled, if such action is judged necessary in the national interest.
2. In support of proposals for such experiments, the sponsoring agency will prepare for the Special Assistant for Science and Technology a detailed evaluation of the importance of the particular experiment and the possible direct or indirect effects that might be associated with it.
3. The Special Assistant for Science and Technology will review the proposals and supporting materials presented by the sponsoring agency in order to assure that the need for the experiment has been properly weighed against possible adverse environmental effects.
4. On the basis of this review, the Special Assistant for Science and Technology will recommend to me what action should be taken on the proposed experiment. If the Special Assistant judges that inadequate information is available on which to make a judgment, he may request that additional studies be undertaken by the sponsoring agency or he may undertake an independent study of the problem.
5. Any experiment that may involve significant or protracted adverse effects will not be conducted without my prior approval.
6. In the case of experiments (such as atmospheric nuclear tests) that have major national security implications, the head of the sponsoring agency will notify the Special Assistant for National Security Affairs as well as the Special Assistant for Science and Technology and will supply both with an evaluation of the importance of the particular experiment and the possible direct or indirect effects that might be associated with it. The Special Assistant for National Security Affairs will determine on an individual case basis the procedure to be followed in reviewing these experiments in order to assure that the need for the experiment has been properly weighed against possible adverse environmental effects.
7. To the extent that it is consistent with national security and subsequent to approval, there should be early and widespread dissemination of public information explaining experiments of this type.
8. While the final decision to conduct such experiments must continue to reside with the government, the National Academy of Sciences and where appropriate international scientific bodies or intergovernmental organizations may be consulted in the case of those experiments that might have adverse environmental effects beyond the U.S. Recommendation on the advisability of this course of action will be made by the Special Assistant for Science and Technology in consultation with the sponsoring agency and the State Department.
John F. Kennedy
The precise reasons that prompted President Kennedy to issue this National Security Action Memorandum are unclear. One possibility is that it reflected his growing concern over the dangers posed by atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, an issue that would later be addressed through the ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in the fall of 1963. Another plausible explanation, given the timing, is that the memorandum was influenced, at least in part, by the concerns raised by biologist Rachel Carson regarding the environmental and public health effects of the insecticide DDT. In 1962, Carson had completed Silent Spring, the landmark book that brought widespread attention to the ecological and human health risks associated with indiscriminate pesticide use. She wrote:
The balance of nature is built of a series of interrelationships between living things, and between living things and their environment. You can’t just step in with some brute force and change one thing without changing a good many others. Now this doesn’t mean, of course, that we must never interfere, that we must not attempt to tilt the balance of nature in our favor. But when we do make this attempt, we must know what we’re doing, we must know the consequences.
The chemical industry reacted unfavorably to President Kennedy’s willingness to take Silent Spring seriously. By acknowledging the book’s concerns and calling for further investigation, he lent credibility to arguments that many in the industry sought to dismiss. Critics characterized the book as “alarmist” and “hysterical.” One detractor even asserted, “If man were to faithfully follow the teachings of Miss Carson, we would return to the Dark Ages, and the insects and diseases would once again inherit the earth.”8 Rather than accept either side’s claims at face value, Kennedy directed his President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) to investigate the issue. In May 1963, the committee released its findings, which largely vindicated Carson’s conclusions.9
In his February 1963 message to Congress, JFK stated that “substantial advances have been made during the past year in protecting the American people against contamination of food, air and water, and from hazards associated with drugs.”10 This included:
the spending of $600 million to build needed waste treatment facilities, the largest such expenditure in US history
the strengthening of a national program of protection against undue exposure to radiation
Drug law amendments which set higher standards of safety, efficacy, and honesty in the manufacture and sale of drugs. The new legislation required the FDA’s approval before a drug could be marketed. It transferred to the FDA control over prescription drug advertising, which would have to include accurate information about side effects. It required the FDA to approve efficacy (previously, it was only responsible for safety approval). Finally, it mandated that the FDA conduct a retrospective evaluation of the effectiveness of drugs approved for safety between 1938 and 1962.11 This led to a retrospective review of all drugs approved during those decades. By the early 1970s, this review had categorized approximately six hundred medicines as “ineffective” and forced their removal from the market.12
Despite these achievements, President Kennedy emphasized that “much remains to be done.” He identified several areas requiring continued action, including stronger regulation of food, drugs, medical devices, and cosmetics; expanded efforts to control air pollution; and the creation of a centralized facility dedicated to environmental health research. Kennedy wrote:
The long-range assault of multiple environmental contaminations on human health are cumulative and interrelated. It is of great importance, therefore, that our efforts to learn about and control health hazards be unified and mutually supporting. The President’s Science Advisory Committee, in cooperation with the Federal Council for Science and Technology, has undertaken a major review of the Government’s activities with respect to the use of chemicals in the environment.13
This recommendation ultimately led to the establishment of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in 1966, located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. The institute’s goal is to study how the environment affects human health and disease.
These recommendations also helped pave the way for the Clean Air Act of 1963, the first federal legislation to authorize the U.S. government to take direct action in addressing air pollution. In his oral history, Vernon G. MacKenzie, chief of the Public Health Service Division of Air Pollution, stated:
The legislation that was enacted in the form of the Clean Air Act of 1963, in my view, has led to some real progress in dealing with this problem. It broadened the base of the federal program by making more definitive the authorities for dealing with the research and other technical aspects of the problem, and provided a greater degree of financial support. … But perhaps more importantly, it provided new mechanisms for applying the results of research into the actual control of air pollution. This was done by stimulus of state and local governments agencies not only by providing them with technical assistance but by, for the first time, providing financial assistance for the development and improvement of their programs and also by the entrance of the federal government into the actual legal regulatory control aspects of air pollution to supplement in a number of ways the ··· activities of state and local governments, particularly with respect to problems which are not readily within their reach legally. Thus, this new legislation provided for a partnership between all the levels of government so that the total effort could be made more productive.
Such joint effort applies particularly with respect to interstate air pollution problems, that is, a problem in which air pollution arises in one state and adversely affects health or welfare of people in another state. Up to that time, people who were adversely affected in this way--that is, by pollution arising in another state than that in which they were resident--had no legal recourse, but were completely at the mercy, shall I say, of the people in the offending state where the pollution arose. Under the new law, as passed in 1963, the federal government took direct jurisdiction with respect to such interstate problems. In the several years that have elapsed since that legislation was enacted, steps have been taken legally to reduce these adverse effects of an interstate character in areas in which there is a resident population of approximately twenty-five million people. So, I think this has led to something that is quite significant and has affected a large part of our population.14
Perhaps Kennedy’s greatest environmental contribution was the ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty. Aide Arthur Schlesinger Jr. stated, “I have the impression that we would not have had a test ban treaty if … the president … had not been so deeply committed and forced the issue.”15
JFK’s concern for the environment was driven not only by his commitment to protecting human health but also by his love of nature. During his presidency, he established three national seashore parks, preserving important coastal landscapes for future generations:
I don’t know why it should be that six or seven percent only, of the whole Atlantic Coast, should be in the public sphere and the rest owned by private citizens and denied to many millions of our fellow citizens. In the last Congress, three national sea shores were created for all our people: Cape Cod in the Atlantic, Point Reyes in the Pacific, and Padre Island on the Gulf, representing the first major additions to our coast to coast national park system in 16 years, more seashore parks, and I can assure you they are wholly inadequate, more seashore parks than were authorized all throughout our history.16
Secretary of the Interior Stuart Udall remarked on President Kennedy’s efforts to establish these parks:
Well, it was very fortunate for me that President Kennedy was so deeply and personally involved in Cape Cod, because he knew out of personal experience a lot of things that I didn’t have to tell him, as to the fact that the national policy needed to be changed and that that these magnificent coastline areas that were left were going, going, gone. Because he introduced his bill as a senator in 1956-57. Of course, he knew and loved the Cape and all the people up there were concerned, and they got the park service and others working on it. But the bill didn’t go very far. There was a lot of opposition on the Cape. The congressman from there always was dragging his feet and Kennedy wasn’t able as a senator to get much headway. I don’t know whether a bill passed the senate. I don’t think it did. But when he became president, naturally, with the Democrats controlling Congress and everything, it was rather simple and easy to say, “Well boys, we’re going to begin by giving the President a present of a national park in his own state.” Naturally, he was all for it. This passed the first year. … It was also something that the President knew intimately and watched closely and was very pleased with. But then naturally he was not going to be selfish. Well, I remember him saying to me, “Well, aren’t there some more seashores we can save?” Of course, that gave me my green light to go with Point Reyes and Padre Island and the others that we began working on. We set out looking at the entire coastline of the country to find these superb seashore areas that were left, could be bought and put into the national park system.17
As demonstrated, President John F. Kennedy expressed a genuine commitment to protecting human health, safeguarding the environment, and improving living conditions and standards of living through a variety of initiatives. Stuart Udall, who worked closely with Kennedy on environmental matters, reflected on the significance of Kennedy’s legacy:
One of John Kennedy’s memorable achievements was the hold he gained on world opinion. When he died, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan wrote that JFK “...seemed, in his own person, to embody all of the hopes and aspirations of this new world that is trying to emerge ...” If Macmillan was right, this was a remarkable thing to accomplish in three swift years. It is clear Kennedy was loved and revered by millions of ordinary people around the globe because somehow, he had the capacity to lift their hopes, to catch their imaginations. If fifty years from now Kennedy is revealed as the last American President who was a true global leader idolized and revered in all parts of the world, this phenomenon alone will give pause to future historians.18
Address at University of Wyoming, September 25, 1963, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKWHA/196 3/JFKWHA-222-002/JFKWHA-222-002.
Address at National Academy of Sciences, October 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKPOF/047/J FKPOF-047-037.
Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street (New York, NY: Sheridan Square Publications, 1994), 66.
Ibid., 60.
John R. Bogher, The Revolution of Robert Kennedy (New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press, 2017), 159.
John F. Kennedy, The Strategy of Peace (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1960), 26.
John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, White House Audio Collection. Address at the Anniversary Convocation of the National Academy of Sciences, 22 October 1963, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkwha-233-003 and
Hasok Chang and Catherine Jackson, eds., “An Element of Controversy: The Life of Chlorine in Science, Medicine, Technology and War” (British Society for the History of Science, 2007), 360–382, https://www.bshs.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/file/bshs_monographs/library_monographs/bshsm_013/bshsm_013_11.pdf.
Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. President’s Office Files. Departments and Agencies. President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC): Pesticides report, 15 May 1963, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/JFKPOF/087/JFKPOF-087-003.
Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. White House Central Subject Files. Speeches. SP: 2-3: Special messages: HE (Health): Executive, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkwhcsf-0915-010#?image_identifier=JFKWHCSF-0915-010-p0004.
“Kefauver-Harris Amendments Revolutionized Drug Development,” FDA Consumer Health Information, October 2012, https://www.gvsu.edu/cms4/asset/F51281F0-00AFE25A-5BF632E8D4A243C7/kefauver-harris_amendments.fda.thalidomide.pdf.
Jeremy A. Greene and Scott H. Podolsky, “Reform, Regulation, and Pharmaceuticals—The Kefauver-Harris Amendments at 50,” The New England Journal of Medicine 367, no. 16 (2012): 1481–1483, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1210007.
Papers of John F. Kennedy. Presidential Papers. White House Central Subject Files. Speeches. SP: 2-3: Special messages: HE (Health): Executive, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkwhcsf-0915-010#?image_identifier=JFKWHCSF-0915-010-p0004.
Vernon G. MacKenzie, recorded interview by William T. McHugh, April 19, 1967, pages 3-4, John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Program, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkoh-vgm-01.
Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy, narrated by Jacqueline Kennedy and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. (Hyperion Audiobooks, 2011), Audible audio ed., 9 hr., 14 min.
White House Audio Collection. Address at the Pinchot Institute for Conservation Studies, Milford, Pennsylvania, 24 September 1963, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkwha-220-001.
Stewart L. Udall, recorded interview by William W. Moss, May 20, 1970, pages 104-105, John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Program, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkoh-slu-05.
Stewart L. Udall, recorded interview by William W. Moss, September 17, 1970, Thoughts About the Kennedy Legacy, John F. Kennedy Library Oral History Program, https://www.jfklibrary.org/asset-viewer/archives/jfkoh-slu-08.