6 ms·
The intention seems legit, despite the concern. Quote from the article: The pathogen to be modified must pose a serious health threat, and the work must produc
by yegle 9y ago
The intention seems legit, despite the concern. Quote from the article:
The pathogen to be modified must pose a serious health threat, and the work must produce knowledge — such as a vaccine — that would benefit humans. Finally, there must be no safer way to do the research.
- grzm 9y agoAlso, it's regulated and overseen by a review board: > "Now, a government panel will require that researchers show that their studies in this area are scientifically sound and that they will be done in a high-security lab." It does sound like there are concerns. I'm glad that people are keeping their eyes on it. I found this quote interesting as well, regarding publishing the results of such research: > “Physicists long ago learned to distinguish between what can be publicly available and what’s classified,” he added, referring to nuclear weapons research. “We want to keep some of this stuff on a need-to-know basis.”
- pluc 9y agoThe problem with the US keeping their eyes on it is that you can't trust them. All you need is a few lobbyists and rules and regulations seem to be just words. Hell, Net Neutrality had plenty of people "keeping their eyes on it" too.
- grzm 9y agoYou're right that that can be an issue, and one raised in the article. I intended that particular phrase (which admittedly could have been written better) to mean that others outside of the government are watching the process, such as those commenting in the article. Definitely room for improvement, but I don't think this is something that's being done lightly. This whole thing concerns me, but like with many such topics, it's often more complicated than what is summed up in the headline.
- jknoepfler 9y agoI'm not sure why this is being downvoted, other than that it isn't precise. I'm general you can't trust regulators or legislators at the federal level.
- emodendroket 9y agoIf you take this argument to its logical conclusion there is no point arguing about the law in the first place.
- wasx 9y agoTheir criticism wasn't of the law but of the undue influence of lobbyists in the American political system.
- emodendroket 9y agoIf you "cannot trust regulators or legislators at the federal level" how can you trust the laws? Who writes them, and who enforces them, if not legislators and regulators, respectively?
- wasx 9y agoRight but they're not saying they don't trust regulators and legislators as a concept, they're saying they don't trust them when they're basically writing what lobbyists tell them to. It's right they don't trust the law, but their criticism isn't of law and regulation. It's of lobbyists.
- emodendroket 9y agoBut I mean if they're really completely compromised then it doesn't much matter. I share the OP's concerns but I think he goes too far in his claims.
- yakt 9y ago
- djsumdog 9y agoIf non-reputable agencies wanted to do illegal research, there is literally nothing that would stop them. Look at NSA spying, MKUltra, and the failed nerve gas test that killed hundreds of sheep. The US still has the largest arsenal of nerve gas in the world, much of it which is still in the queue to be destroyed, much of it still leaking.
- AnkhMorporkian 9y agoI haven't heard anything about continued leaking. Any sources on that? Googling turns up nothing besides the sheep incident.
- ethbro 9y agoNot sure I want to Google "where is US military nerve gas stockpiled?"
- mr_spothawk 9y agothat's the chilling effect
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sgift 9y agoHere, Wiki got you covered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_chemical_weapons#Sites_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_chemical_weapon...
- AnkhMorporkian 9y agoI did google it, there was nothing of import, and that's why I asked the question.
- Gracana 9y agoThere was a good NBC dateline documentary about it years ago. The biggest stockpiles were being dismantled slowly, but they were indeed leaking, and it was a gargantuan project to neutralize the weapons and containers full of VX. I'm not sure where we're at now. I'll look it up later when I'm home.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- saosebastiao 9y agoThose seem reasonable. It's too bad the DEA can't be bothered to apply similar sound judgment to their drug classification schedules.
- TheSithMaster 9y ago"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- toomanybeersies 9y agoGetting a bit off topic here, but I've always interpreted that aphorism differently, and apparently the history of the saying agrees with me. I've always interpreted it as being a corollary to "actions speak louder than words". Simply saying something, or having the intention to do something does not mean it will actually get done.
- thret 9y agoI just assumed it meant both. On the off topic though, I've always liked: "Words without actions lack credibility; Actions without words lack clarity." - John Stott.
- baddox 9y agoSeems to me like that applies just as well to the prior ban.
- JustAnotherPat 9y agoI mean, even if the intention was to create a bioweapon to use in war, you would think the work would still fit those two parameters. And how do you know the work will 'produce knowledge?' A vaccine is impossible to guarantee.
- devcpp 9y agoA negative result is also considered knowledge: rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis is usually valuable. Tom Scott just did a video on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOJnOCdBr4s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOJnOCdBr4s So a bioweapon might not satisfy this criteria. Besides it probably violates other laws, and is thus still illegal.
- matt4077 9y agoI have no serious concerns with the US' good intentions, nor their ability to properly manage such a program. What I fear, however, is that this action undermines the Biological Weapons Convention[0]. The convention explicitly allows for research such as this, yes. Nonetheless, it effectively worked as a moratorium on such research, with the US leading by example. This program creates a situation much like nuclear research, where civil and military use cases exist on a continuum, with the first often being used to cover the second. Note how biological agents, where the US had the moral high ground, have entirely disappeared. Meanwhile, nuclear and chemical agents, which can be produced under the cover of closely related civil industries, are still very much threatening (and killing) people today. [0]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention
- jdironman 9y agoOpensource Virus Warfare