I’ve read it. I have to say Clark makes some comments on the crazy things that were tried, and they are not complimentary.
Without a biochemical model, histological differences were largely guesswork. They might be diagnostic, they might not, but it is hard to see what these very crude experiments brought to the table that couldn’t have been done by small area tests. Having people crawl through areas soaked in mustard gas? That isn’t an experiment; it’s a perversion.
Could easily be tested without human or animal subjects.
Goodman and Gilman were already investigating possibly therapeutic effects of chemical warfare agents. Alexander’s work may have hastened progress a bit, but an accident is an accident - it did not arise from an experiment.
I normally tend to agree with your posts, but today you seem to be trying to justify irresponsible experiments carried out on unwitting human subjects. We will have to disagree. The apparently pragmatic approach of “the end justifies the means” can lead to a society I wouldn’t want to live in.