-Caveat Lector- This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Scientists Discuss Balance of Research and Security January 10, 2003 By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO WASHINGTON, Jan. 9 - Leading scientists began talks here today on whether and how to withhold publication of scientific information that could compromise national security. The discussions at the National Academy of Sciences follow a raft of post-Sept. 11 restrictions on research into some 64 substances that could be used in biological weapons. The discussions were also partly an effort to fend off potential government censorship or other steps to control unclassified research that the new domestic security law terms "sensitive." The talks were prompted by the hesitance of microbiologists to publish their full research in scientific journals out of concern that terrorists could use the information. While restrictions on research have long been a fact of life for chemists and nuclear physicists, they are new and not entirely welcome among microbiologists, who say data must be published so other scientists can verify the quality of the research by reproducing the results. "We in the life sciences are in the process of losing some of our innocence," said Stephen S. Morse of the Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University. "Knowledge, often using very simple materials, is also the critical ingredient in making a biological weapons advance." The discussions brought together two communities that have often viewed each other with distrust, if not disdain: security experts and scientists. While some scientists contend that the best defense against biological weapons is robust research that is widely accessible, security specialists maintain that scientists are being naïve at best, and reckless at worst. "These two communities, if we do not start now with a constructive dialogue with each other, we're going to turn this into a disaster," said John J. Hamre, president of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which sponsored the meeting along with the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Hamre noted that the political climate in Washington and around the nation supported greater restrictions on science and civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism. If scientists did not take the security concerns seriously, he said, politicians and policy makers with little understanding of science would step in with "blanket restrictions on science, not knowing what's sensitive and what's not sensitive." "For precious little security, we would have devastating effects for the conduct of science," said Dr. Hamre, a former deputy secretary of defense. John H. Marburger, director of the White House Office on Science and Technology Policy, noted that under a Reagan-era directive, research that was not classified as secret when ordered by the government could not be classified retroactively. But citing a report by the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies, he said such "traditional regulatory approaches are not well suited to biosecurity concerns." Dr. Marburger did not reveal any impending policy changes, but said, "Those concerns are public concerns, and to them the public deserves a rational and serious response from its government." The discussions, in a sense, ran against the instincts of many scientists here. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, stood before a picture of children gathered around a giant bust of Albert Einstein and recalled the society's founding mission: "to make science much more accessible to the nation and the world." Today's discussions pondered the opposite. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, new laws and regulations restrict who may work on 64 "select agents" that could be used to make biological weapons, barring students or scholars with a drug conviction or a history of mental illness and those from countries labeled sponsors of terrorism from participating in research. Universities and clinical and research laboratories have inventoried their select agents, with many of them urging researchers to destroy their stocks unless they were needed for current projects. Scientists found with such agents in violation of the law could face five years in prison. Lewis Branscom, a Harvard professor who is advising the university on future work with select agents and other security issues, said he feared not so much a "frontal assault" on the First Amendment's freedom to speak and publish as "an elaborate web of controls that look and smell and taste like classification." Barring groups of people - certain foreigners, marijuana smokers or people with clinical depression, say, from the research, he said, "reminds me very much of the McCarthy days." Ronald Atlas, president of the American Society of Microbiologists, noted that proposed regulations issued in December included prohibitions on certain avenues of experimentation, and said he was concerned by First Amendment issues. "Do you have a right of inquiry?" Dr. Atlas asked. "It's almost biblical: when God says, `Thou shalt not eat of the Tree of Knowledge.' " In the cold war, the United States faced a technologically advanced adversary, but today's threat from enemy nations and terrorists is more diffuse, with discoveries that appear benign sometimes providing the clues for weapons to spread disease. Outlining a hair-raising next generation of biological armaments, George Poste, chairman of the bioterrorism task force at the Defense Department, said, "I do not wish to see the coffins of my family, my children and grandchildren created as a consequence of the utter naïvete, arrogance and hubris of people who cannot see there is a problem." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/10/science/10SECR.html?ex=1043280355&ei=1&en=fa1ba6157e26fd88 HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
