Gather initial thoughts and broad opinions about the book.

1. Before reading this book, what was your understanding of the US space program’s origins? Jacobsen is also known for writing Area 51 (2011), which deals with similar themes of government secrecy. How did Operation Paperclip expand or challenge your views on the relationship between national security, scientific advancement, and public disclosure?

2. Which of the book’s many revelations, from the use of forced labor at the Mittelwerk to the US government actively hiding war criminals, had the biggest impact on you and why?

3. What is the single biggest takeaway you are left with after finishing the book? Did it change how you think about the moral complexities of the Cold War or the legacy of World War II?

Encourage readers to connect the book’s themes and characters with their personal experiences.

1. The phrase “science at any price” is a central question in the book. Can you think of any modern day examples where society seems to prioritize technological or scientific advancement over ethical considerations? How do we draw the line today?

2. Many of the German scientists, like Wernher von Braun, seemed to compartmentalize their work from its human cost. Why do you think people are able to separate their professional actions from their personal morality in this way? Have you ever observed this kind of justification in other contexts?

3. How did you feel about the US government and organizations like NASA celebrating men like von Braun and Hubertus Strughold as heroes while their pasts were actively suppressed? Does learning the full story change how you view their achievements?

4. What do the stories of figures like Samuel Klaus and Dr. Leopold Alexander suggest about the power of an individual’s conscience when faced with institutional pressure?

5. How do you personally weigh a person’s celebrated contributions to society against their harmful actions?

6. The US government justified the program by framing it as a necessary evil to stay ahead of the Soviet Union. When, if ever, is it acceptable for a nation to compromise its stated values in the name of national security? Where do you draw that line?

Examine the book’s relevance to societal issues, historical events, or cultural themes.

1. With regard to President Eisenhower’s warning about the “scientific-technological elite” becoming too powerful, in what ways do you see this warning playing out today in fields like artificial intelligence, biotechnology, or surveillance technology?

2. How does the story of Operation Paperclip inform current debates about immigration and who is deemed “useful” to a country versus who is deemed undesirable?

3. The book details the eventual renaming of buildings and rescinding of awards named for figures like Hubertus Strughold. How does this connect to contemporary conversations about removing monuments or renaming institutions tied to controversial historical figures?

Dive into the book’s structure, characters, themes, and symbolism.

1. Jacobsen frequently contrasts scenes of scientific celebration with depictions of the forced labor that made them possible. How did this narrative technique shape your understanding of the scientists’ moral culpability?

2. What significance does the simple paperclip come to hold as a symbol throughout the narrative? How does it transform from a mundane office supply into an emblem of bureaucratic secrecy and moral compromise?

3. How does Jacobsen portray the motivations of the key figures in the book? Do you see someone like Otto Ambros purely as a villain, or does the author present a more complex portrait of an amoral opportunist?

4. This book, like Rebecca Skloot’s The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks (2010), investigates a history of “science without conscience” where institutional powers exploited vulnerable people for research. What parallels or differences do you see in how these two books explore the long-term consequences of unethical scientific pursuits?

5. How does the act of uncovering secrets from declassified documents become part of the story itself, reinforcing the theme of secrecy as a tool of state power?

6. How do the parallel stories of investigator Leopold Alexander and policymaker John J. McCloy create a central tension in the book, representing the opposing forces of justice and geopolitical pragmatism?

Encourage imaginative and creative connections to the book.

1. Imagine you are tasked with creating a museum exhibit titled “Operation Paperclip: A Contradictory Legacy.” What three artifacts, real or symbolic, would you choose as the centerpiece for the exhibit, and why?

2. If you were a descendant of one of the scientists, like Jochen Haber or Götz Blome, how would you choose to tell your family’s story to honor the victims while grappling with your personal history?

3. You are a junior officer working under Colonel Charles Loucks in Heidelberg, and you have just learned about his secret Saturday meetings with former Nazi chemists to develop sarin. Write a brief, anonymous memo to a trusted superior outlining your concerns. What key points would you raise about the ethical and security risks involved?