While doubts about the reality of Gulf War Syndrome have been put to rest, the search for a cause continues. But this search has focused on chemical or biological weapons and other exotic agents while it is entirely possible the troubles can be attributed to common microorganisms. At least one researcher has found it hard to attract support for this line of inquiry while public pronouncements focus on conspiracy theories such as a "coverup" of poison gas exposure. David Zimmerman is editor and publisher of The Probe Newsletter; Kenneth E. Goldstein is emeritus professor of journalism (science-writing) at Columbia University.

The basic question about Gulf War Syndrome has been resolved -- it exists. But clues to the most likely cause are being overlooked or ignored. Despite escalating and well-publicized worries about chemical and biological weapons, poison gas, or burning oil, it seems the probable cause of the vets' distress is a "bug."

Several microorganisms commonly found in the deserts of the Middle East, carried by sand flies and other insects, are known to cause symptoms much like those which have brought complaints from veterans of the Gulf War. A number of studies published in the medical literature have considered these, though none have reached any firm conclusions.

Recently, investigations have focused on the possibility that service personnel were exposed to poison gases at the Khamisiyah weapons depot in Iraq. Yet only a small fraction of those suffering from Gulf War Syndrome were anywhere near that site.

In fact, many of the men and women who are ill never served on the ground in Iraq or Kuwait at all, but only in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, many of them served in "Desert Shield" in late 1990, but were gone from the area before the air and ground fighting of January and February 1991. If these people, whose symptoms are considered to define the syndrome, were not in the combat zone, it is very difficult to see how their symptoms could be related to combat.

Probers in congress and government and the media have, up to now, insisted on looking at biological or chemical weapons as a source, even though the Presidential Advisory Commission on Gulf War Victims' Illnesses dismissed these as possibilities.

Where should they look?

Evidence gathered by Dr. Katherine Murray-Leisure and a dozen of her colleagues strongly suggests that microorganisms known to live in desert sands are the culprit. Murray-Leisure is an infectious disease expert at the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Lebanon, PA.

These doctors studied 96 members of an Air National Guard unit which had been deployed at an air base in Saudi Arabia, far from the ground combat zone. Of these, 60 complained of being sick and 36 were healthy.

The investigators discovered that every one of the 60 vets who complained of sickness had had extensive bare-skin exposure to the sand. They dug in it, bagged it, spread it, trained and slept in it. Only half the healthy vets had such exposure.

Those who worked in offices, closed quarters, or villages, and those posted on ships or other locations off the sand did not show signs of the illness.

Murray-Leisure and her group also questioned 64 other vets from 26 other widely dispersed military groups, and found they had been extensively exposed to sand.

What is in the sand? Some types of fungus that are heat-resistant, bacteria, perhaps unknown viruses, according to Murray-Leisure. There are also biting sand flies, fleas and other insects that may carry infectious microorganisms.

The doctors at Lebanon have a few clues, but no sure candidate. They are finding it difficult, if not impossible, to obtain the funds needed to pursue their inquiries.

The real mystery at this point is why this promising lead is receiving so little public attention. Is there something about an hypothesis which does not involve a controversy or a conspiracy, such as a "coverup" of poison gas exposure, that does not catch fire? Or are probers reluctant to pursue a lead that might suggest the military had been negligent in failing to warn or protect the troops -- which would not only be embarrassing but costly in terms of disability benefits.

We don't know the answers to these questions. More importantly, we don't know why Murray-Leisure's clues are not being aggressively pursued. Certainly, the veterans' suffering might be more successfully relieved if doctors knew the cause.