Determination
43
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Chester Mirocha against the St. Paul Dispatch
Chester J. Mirocha, a plant pathology professor at
the University of Minnesota, complained that the newspaper unfairly
damaged his reputation and caused him personal grief by falsely implying
that he knowingly conducted secret biological warfare research for
the State Department despite a University ban on such research.
Background: Mirocha's complaint concerned a
series of news articles published in September and October 1981 regarding
tests conducted in his labs. The first story, appearing on September
28, was copyrighted by the paper and appeared on page one under the
large banner headline, "U professor made secret tests for biological
warfare agents."
The article stated that highly guarded government-sponsored
analyses of suspected biological warfare agents had been underway
at the University for two months under Mirocha's direction without
the knowledge of University officials, and was undertaken despite
University policies prohibiting classified or secret research. The
story said that Mirocha's work had been so guarded that employees
in his lab were unaware until recently that they were analyzing plant
samples collected by the intelligence community from sites in Southeast
Asia, where the government suspected Vietnamese troops waged chemical
warfare. The leaf and stem samples were analyzed for microtoxin, a
natural chemical poison that the U.S. government suspected the Soviet
Union of developing into a potential biological warfare agent.
Mirocha complained about the article's assertion that
the news drew "immediate criticism" from some University
officials, including Stan Kegler, Vice President of Institutional
Affairs, who said that he was "totally unaware" of the project
and that he, as well as the chairman of Mirocha's department and the
dean of the college, should have been informed of it.
Mirocha submitted to the Council a memo from Kegler
to University President C. Peter Magrath in which Kegler said he told
the newspaper reporter that he was "not surprised at all not
to be informed" about Mirocha's analyses, not that he "should
have been informed," as the September 28 article stated. Further,
Mirocha said he did not inform higher University officials about the
project because he himself had been unaware of the purpose of the
tests until very recently. He said he received two leaf and stem samples
late in July from a Philadelphia pharmacologist who told him only
that the samples were to be analyzed for microtoxin and who later
sent the results of the tests on to the State Department. The State
Department said that the secrecy was necessary to ensure unbiased
test results and that much of the information would remain classified
until the time was right to make it public.
Mirocha's lab had found unusually high levels of three
types of microtoxins (all of which can be harmful to human beings)
on the samples. This finding prompted Secretary of State Alexander
Haig to claim in a recent speech that he had "positive proof"
that chemical warfare was being waged in Southeast Asia. The scientific
community reacted with skepticism to Haig's announcement (which some
claimed was mostly designed to stress the Soviet threat to world security
and encourage support for a U.S. military build-up). The State Department
later toned down Haig's claim by calling the evidence "preliminary."
The following day, the paper published another front-page
article by the same reporter entitled "U Regents want policy
on secret research," in which the reporter stated that, as a
result of "disclosures that highly guarded work for the U.S.
government on suspected biological warfare agents had been conducted
at the University's St. Paul campus," some University regents
said that University policy on classified or secret research might
have to be "tightened up" and planned to ask University
administrators to prepare a report on the matter. The article contained
comments from various regents, as well as Mirocha's explanation of
how he became involved. The report also indicated that attempts by
the paper during the past two weeks to learn more about the details
of the tests had been "put off" by the State Department
and employees in Mirocha's laboratory.
The next day, September 30, the paper published a
story by the same writer, "UM scientists at odds on evidence
against Russ," concerning the debate among University scientists
over whether the results of Mirocha's analyses proved biological warfare
was indeed being conducted in Southeast Asia. The same day, the paper
published an editorial under the headline "Nothing sinister about
U testing." It claimed that there was no evidence that analyses
of a possible communist biological warfare agent by a University of
Minnesota plant pathologist violated the institution's rules against
secret research and that apparently the only secret was the source
of the material tested. The opinion piece said it was logical that
the State Department would have sent the samples to Minnesota, since
the University is well known for its ability to test for microtoxins
in food or livestock feed. It added that it was also logical that
Mirocha would perform the tests without probing into the origin of
the material, since it was, to him, a routine procedure. "While
the State Department's behind-the-scenes approach may have bruised
some feelings in Minnesota there was nothing sinister afoot,"
stated the editorial.
Several weeks later, on October 16, in a front-page
article, "U research policies, prof, given vote of confidence,"
the original reporter wrote that the Education Policy Committee of
the University's Board of Regents officially sanctioned its existing
research policies and Mirocha. Administrators at the University told
the committee that because Mirocha's work fell into the category of
"outside services," it was perfectly within the University's
guidelines. Although the State Department still refused to release
many details about the project, Mirocha said in the article that he
intended to publish the full results.
Mirocha complained that the newspaper reporter did
not "conduct herself in a professional manner" and upset
the operation of his lab while gathering information for the article.
Despite the fact that the department chair had given the reporter
the "correct, unbiased facts" about the situation, the reporter
persisted in creating "a story out of fantasy," Mirocha
said.
Determination of the Council: The newspaper
falsely implied in its September 28 article that Mirocha knowingly
violated the University's policy prohibiting secret research. The
misleading implication, however, was partially due to Mirocha's own
initial reluctance to talk with the paper openly about the matter,
as well as the State Department's refusal to give the full details.
The paper adequately corrected the false implication in a March 30
editorial and in subsequent stories on the matter. Its offer to clarify
the matter in print was also a proper response to Mirocha's complaint.
Mirocha's harassment charge against the newspaper reporter is unwarranted.
The reporter was persistent in pursuit of the story, but persistence
does not necessarily constitute harassment. The complaint against
the newspaper is not upheld.
Concurring: Amdahl, Brooks, Egert, Fushan,
Graven, Hawthorne, Ryan, Spielman, Ziegenhagen
Concurring Opinion: Shaw Hindsight is always
perfect. But I believe it is unfortunate that the paper did not distinguish
between (a) the University's policy against secret research and (b)
its apparent lack of any corresponding policy prohibiting secret testing.
I concur that the paper falsely implied that Professor Mirocha knowingly
violated the University's policy prohibiting secret research and I
regret that the reporter's superb work on this important story was
flawed by this single error.
Partial Dissent: Early, Fairbanks, Provost
Harassment is a difficult thing to define, but we believe Mirocha
and his lab assistant when they say they felt harassed by the reporter.
We think she overstepped the bounds of good reporting with her constant
questioning of the lab assistant and her repeated phone calls. We
are particularly opposed to the practice of calling sources very early
in the morning and very late at night, unless absolutely necessary.
Partial Dissent: Miles, Selby We do not believe
that the beginning of the paper's September 28 article falsely implied
that the complainant breached the University's secret research policy.
The paper's use of the words "secret" and "highly guarded"
were justified under the circumstances. The tests were so, whether
Mirocha knew it or not. We also believe that the paper and the reporter
should be commended for going after a tremendously important story
and raising the issue of whether the University's "outside services"
policy is adequate. Given the fact that Mirocha and the State Department
were clearly unwilling to tell her all they knew about the analyses
and their implications, she did remarkably well.
Partial Dissent: Brooks The paper was insensitive
to Mirocha and his lack of experience with the news media. When the
paper first contacted him he was understandably quite concerned about
the effect the paper's reporting might have on career and work at
the University. But the paper pinned him to the wall and never let
up. By antagonizing him at the start, the paper surrendered to others
the task of providing the "facts" of the situation. As a
result, certain people at the University (perhaps with their own axe
to grind about the University's research policy or Mirocha himself)
created a sinister image of Mirocha's work in the mind of the reporter.
This led to a regrettable "overkill." Ironically enough
it's this very kind of overkill that causes people to be wary of dealing
with the press. In all other respects, all partial dissenting opinions
concur with the determination.
November 17, 1981
Read
Determination 44
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
