5 ms·

> They seem to point to medical research to fight against diseases, rather than “biomilitary activities”. They are dual use research. Just like research for nu

by qiskit 5y ago

> They seem to point to medical research to fight against diseases, rather than “biomilitary activities”. They are dual use research. Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. Research for rockets is the same for icbms. It's why we are so keen on preventing iran from developing their nuclear energy program. It's why we are worried about north korea's "space" program. The same thing with cybersecurity. By learning to prevent cyberattacks, you are also learning how to carry out cyberattacks. And vice versa. You can't research against diseases/viruses/etc without procuring, creating and developing them.

whatshisface 5y ago
Researching viruses in general is not a dual-use activity. Most viruses spread everywhere when they get out. Pathogens like anthrax can't spread from human to human, making them plausible weapons and proportionally decreasing the urgency of researching them. (The labs may have been researching anthrax but the odds are fair that none of their research involved anything that could be a weapon.) Edited to replace virus with "pathogen".
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > proportionally decreasing the urgency of researching them Unless your primary concern is defensive against biowarfare rather than natural outbreaks...which is indeed a priority for military research h.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    That's true, but it remains that bioweapon research is distinct from virus research.
    - ashwagary 5y ago
      I disagree, there is plenty of overlap.
      - orwin 5y ago
        No, no bioweapon is a virus. You have toxin based or bacteria based bioweapons, but not any virus bioweapon yet. It's a bad idea, and an extremely difficult and costly operation to engineer a virus.
        t-3 5y ago
        Do you think nobody is carrying out research just because it's costly, difficult, and hasn't been demonstrated yet?
- bewaretheirs 5y ago
  Anthrax is a disease caused by a bacterium, not a virus. Production of Bacillus anthracis spores for weapons use in the Soviet Union was in progress when an accident resulted in a release of spores that killed at least 66 people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak
- exolymph 5y ago
  No, the point is that viral research is inherently dual-use regardless of intent: "You can't research against diseases/viruses/etc without procuring, creating and developing them."
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    Research about polio is not dual-use because there's no way to restart a polio epidemic in the enemy's country without it spreading to yours.
    - cameronh90 5y ago
      I'm not even sure that's true. Knowing anything about viruses means you're better placed to try and use them as a weapon versus someone who does no research on them. You can try and find specific counter examples, but I think the idea that most virus research, and scientific research in general, could likely be repurposed for bad or good, is probably pretty accurate in general. Policing "bad" science while allowing "good" science is probably an impossible task.
ivanbakel 5y ago
>Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. This is not entirely accurate. It's possible to run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons - which, up until the collapse of Iran's deal with Western powers, was exactly what they were (meant to be) doing. You have to deliberately enrich uranium well past the point where it's useful for reactors before you start getting into weapon-making territory. Nobody would characterise a nuclear energy plant in a Western country as a "nuclear weapons research facility", not least because the uranium involved is nowhere near weapons-grade.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  I agree that you can run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons. However, investment in nuclear reactors and in nuclear research reduces the cost of nuclear weapons, so they are indeed dual-use. Of course, no one characterizes nuclear energy plants in Western countries as nuclear weapons research facilities, but it's perfectly reasonable to say they are dual-use. This isn't limited to nuclear energy, the term is also applicable to various things such as civilian aviation, image recognition technology, advanced metallurgy, camera technology etc... So I don't think you really disagree with who you're replying to. Yes, the facilities aren't exactly what you need, but they're a big step towards that, and generally research in the domain has a fair degree of applicability.
- ashwagary 5y ago
  Nuclear is a bad example because of enrichement differences. Any BSL4 lab can have multiple uses depending on the mission of the employees. They can easily be used as bioweapon labs, I haven't seen any good pushback on this idea.
- qiskit 5y ago
  > Nobody would characterise a nuclear energy plant in a Western country as a "nuclear weapons research facility" By nobody you mean everybody, especially everybody outside of the west? It's funny how blinded we are by our false sense of moral superiority. > not least because the uranium involved is nowhere near weapons-grade. Last I checked, doesn't take that much technical effort or time going from "civilian" to militar/weapons grade. There are an entire class of nations classified as nuclear latent powers - about 20 or so nations who could piggy back off their "civilian" nuclear industry to nuclears weapons in weeks/months. Surprisingly, the list is made up primarily of western nations ( which nobody would characterize as having nuclear weapons research facilities ) and japan/south korea/etc.
JohnHaugeland 5y ago
> Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. This is absurdly untrue. This is an error to the level of claiming that programming language research is the same as video game manual writing, and then trying to justify it as "but they both involve computers"

by qiskit 5y ago

whatshisface 5y ago

Researching viruses in general is not a dual-use activity. Most viruses spread everywhere when they get out. Pathogens like anthrax can't spread from human to human, making them plausible weapons and proportionally decreasing the urgency of researching them. (The labs may have been researching anthrax but the odds are fair that none of their research involved anything that could be a weapon.) Edited to replace virus with "pathogen".

shkkmo 5y ago
> proportionally decreasing the urgency of researching them Unless your primary concern is defensive against biowarfare rather than natural outbreaks...which is indeed a priority for military research h.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  That's true, but it remains that bioweapon research is distinct from virus research.
  - ashwagary 5y ago
    I disagree, there is plenty of overlap.
    - orwin 5y ago
      No, no bioweapon is a virus. You have toxin based or bacteria based bioweapons, but not any virus bioweapon yet. It's a bad idea, and an extremely difficult and costly operation to engineer a virus.
      - t-3 5y ago
        Do you think nobody is carrying out research just because it's costly, difficult, and hasn't been demonstrated yet?
bewaretheirs 5y ago
Anthrax is a disease caused by a bacterium, not a virus. Production of Bacillus anthracis spores for weapons use in the Soviet Union was in progress when an accident resulted in a release of spores that killed at least 66 people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak
exolymph 5y ago
No, the point is that viral research is inherently dual-use regardless of intent: "You can't research against diseases/viruses/etc without procuring, creating and developing them."
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Research about polio is not dual-use because there's no way to restart a polio epidemic in the enemy's country without it spreading to yours.
  - cameronh90 5y ago
    I'm not even sure that's true. Knowing anything about viruses means you're better placed to try and use them as a weapon versus someone who does no research on them. You can try and find specific counter examples, but I think the idea that most virus research, and scientific research in general, could likely be repurposed for bad or good, is probably pretty accurate in general. Policing "bad" science while allowing "good" science is probably an impossible task.

ivanbakel 5y ago

>Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. This is not entirely accurate. It's possible to run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons - which, up until the collapse of Iran's deal with Western powers, was exactly what they were (meant to be) doing. You have to deliberately enrich uranium well past the point where it's useful for reactors before you start getting into weapon-making territory. Nobody would characterise a nuclear energy plant in a Western country as a "nuclear weapons research facility", not least because the uranium involved is nowhere near weapons-grade.

sudosysgen 5y ago
I agree that you can run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons. However, investment in nuclear reactors and in nuclear research reduces the cost of nuclear weapons, so they are indeed dual-use. Of course, no one characterizes nuclear energy plants in Western countries as nuclear weapons research facilities, but it's perfectly reasonable to say they are dual-use. This isn't limited to nuclear energy, the term is also applicable to various things such as civilian aviation, image recognition technology, advanced metallurgy, camera technology etc... So I don't think you really disagree with who you're replying to. Yes, the facilities aren't exactly what you need, but they're a big step towards that, and generally research in the domain has a fair degree of applicability.
ashwagary 5y ago
Nuclear is a bad example because of enrichement differences. Any BSL4 lab can have multiple uses depending on the mission of the employees. They can easily be used as bioweapon labs, I haven't seen any good pushback on this idea.
qiskit 5y ago
> Nobody would characterise a nuclear energy plant in a Western country as a "nuclear weapons research facility" By nobody you mean everybody, especially everybody outside of the west? It's funny how blinded we are by our false sense of moral superiority. > not least because the uranium involved is nowhere near weapons-grade. Last I checked, doesn't take that much technical effort or time going from "civilian" to militar/weapons grade. There are an entire class of nations classified as nuclear latent powers - about 20 or so nations who could piggy back off their "civilian" nuclear industry to nuclears weapons in weeks/months. Surprisingly, the list is made up primarily of western nations ( which nobody would characterize as having nuclear weapons research facilities ) and japan/south korea/etc.

JohnHaugeland 5y ago

> Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. This is absurdly untrue. This is an error to the level of claiming that programming language research is the same as video game manual writing, and then trying to justify it as "but they both involve computers"