Breeds than at a Dog Show

Since we cannot know all that is to be known of everything, we ought to know a little about everything. 

I almost have to dream myself back and forth to recapture all the interesting happenings during my first five and a half years at Edgewood. I ve got a stack of reports, a pile of data sheets filled with rows and columns of numbers, personal and official letters, family and workplace photographs and... my memories. 

And it wasn t just breeds of drugs. I found myself sorting out people and places, too. Not that one person was better to work with than the next, or that one location was more worth visiting than any other. Although we were becoming more familiar with the drugs, we still had to choose with whom, as well as when and where, to concentrate our efforts. Obviously, there was no way to come up with foolproof formulas or protocols for such decisions. As in any endeavor, the unpredictable flow of events and opportunities often imposed the decisions upon us. 

But talk about high doses In 1958, under an Army contract, Dr. Gerald Klee had paid each of several volunteers to take LSD four times, with at least a week between doses. In random sequence, he gave each subject 2, 4, 8 and 16 mcg/kg, which in an average-sized male would equal total doses of 150, 300, 600 and 1200 micrograms It was a double-blind study - neither the doctor nor the subjects knew who had received what until after the experiment was completed. 

It amazed me that Edgewood had allowed Klee to publish the results in the open literature. If he had conducted the same tests in our laboratory, the Security Office would have promptly stamped his reports Secref and locked them up in a steel file. Nevertheless, both the editor of the journal and the security gatekeepers at Edgewood approved Klee s publication, apparently without a blink. One might conclude that they treated hired contractors and in-house investigators as different breeds when it came to classifying their work. 

---

Comparison of fore/hind Umb ratio showed a significant difference between both sized groups for the stance time, relative stance time, and peak of pressure. And it seemed almost significantly different for the number of activated sensors. The forelimbs of small-breed adult dogs presented a fore/hind hmbs distribution with less pressure (1.45/1.60) on forelimbs, but longer stance time (1.15/1.08) than the large-breed dogs, at walk. 

---