What then?

Advocates for the mentally retarded, who comprise a large segment of the radiation tests subjects of the Cold War era (prisoners and members of the military were most of the other victims), are calling for compensation.

The scientists who conducted the experiments and the agencies which authorized them should pay, advocates say--at the very least, for the long-term health-care of the victims. At best, compensation is necessary for the emotional pain and suffering which recent revelations of the experiments have caused, advocates say.

It is unclear whether the University might have to compensate victims. In both of the known experiments in which Harvard played a role, at least one other agency also sanctioned the experiment.

In the case of Benda's work at Fernald, the research was sponsored by the Quaker Oats Co. and isotopes were supplied by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's predecessor. MIT scientists also shared in the work at Fernald.

At Wrentham, the experiment was backed by the U.S. Public Health Service, Division of Radiological Health, Research Branch.

In both cases, the state schools worked side-by-side with the scientists.

This cooperation may ultimately be what gets Harvard off the compensation hook. The University could deny any liability, arguing that it was the federal government which first approved the research.

That, of course, doesn't answer the question of whether the University is responsible for what its employees do under its name.

Were officials at the state schools that sanctioned the experiments reassured by Harvard's reputation?

By saying they were from Harvard, did the researchers convey a tacit understanding that they were operating with the permission of the University?

Or did the University in fact authorize this work? Because some of the work was done by research fellows at the Medical School, it would have been reasonable for them to submit a proposal of their work and to seek some department approval.

As the University answers these questions, it will reach a point at which it must decide whether or not to act on its findings.

That decision will be closely watched. By the federal government, by the state, by medical ethicists, by advocates for the retarded. And by the victims.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.