Nineteen members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and the Medical School faculty as well as ten other scientists from the Boston area have sent a statement to a number of high Administration officials condemning American use of chemical warfare in Vietnam.

The 29 scientists contended that since the use of chemical and biological weapons is directed against a country's civilian population "it does not serve our national interest, and is immoral." They defined chemical weapons as those toxic to men, animals, and plants.

Copies of the petition were sent to Vice President Humphrey, Secretary of State Rusk, and Secretary of Defense MacNamara.

They discounted U. S. attempts to justify the use of gas and herbicides in Vietnam on the grounds that they are not lethal.

"Biological weapons have not yet been perfected. Viruses contain small molecules which can be unpredictably changed by enzymes in the human body. This makes it impossible to measure a weapon's degree of toxicity. We must assume that all are potentially lethal," said Matthew S. Meselson, professor of Biology and a member of the group, at a press conference here yesterday.

Meselson did not feel that past discussion of chemical warfare and its consequences showed sufficient thought or maturity on the part of the military. "We are like children playing with matches, and tend to forget that the U.S. is the military pacesetter of the world. Should we decide to pioneer the use of germ, viral, and gas weapons, we might lead to their use in smaller countries."

A five-man panel made up of members of the group also discussed the long-range implications of U.S. development of chemical warfare. "Biological weapons are small and cheap; their use and perfection will lower the barrier to irresponsible war," Meselson continued.

The panel concluded that the U.S. will suffer considerable loss of world prestige if it continues the use of chemical weapons in Vietnam. They added that world disarmament must take place before such weapons are perfected, because their concealment would be easy and would thus defeat the purpose or arms control.