Slashdot Mirror
Security Versus Science
dogfrt writes "According to this Wired News article, post-9/11 homeland security has had a decidedly negative effect on US scientific research. In specific, researchers are self-censoring what they publish, talented foreign students are being denied visas (approximately 20%, according to one source in the article), and researchers are avoiding work with dangerous pathogens, choosing more innocuous micro-organisms."
Sad, esp. considering how artifical such security is anyway. Frankly, with Ashcroft and Ridge at the helm, I trust the DHS less than what they ostensibly fight against... That aside, if we refuse to allow talented people into our country, what's that do but force them to work for our competitors and perhaps even enemies? Lovely bit of intel there. Oh, well. No one ever accused the Bush administration of having a collective brain cell.
#define DRM chmod 000
This is something I've beleived for a long time. Security through obscurity (i.e. preventing reserach in areas that may be dangerous), just does not work.
Yes...they're making an effort to make these decisions, on account of they could be arrested if they don't :-p
Twenties Retirement
Why do they feel terrorists could use their work? So far they have been using such advanced technology as trucks loaded with manure, a box-cutter and some homemade explosives.
Overall they're doing the right thing, but I can't help but feel they're doing it for the wrong reason.
1) the quoted article said 20% of students in physics were having trouble entering the US--that is a long ways from saying they didn't enter all all.
2) There is a real question of if the open borders policy has really helped US science in a meaningful way from the 20's-50's the US had a fairly strict immigration policy and quite a bit of science happened in the US. Right now the US has a serious problem of underutilizatin of native US technical/scientific talent.
It seems to me that if we really want to protect ourselves from chemichal and bio terrorisim, what we need are a lot of researchers who are experts in that area, and a lot of R&D so as to learn how to cope, plan, and respond to disasters. Thanks to my government, just the opposite is happening. So who'se the real threat to national security?
Sept. 11 changed everyone's PERCEPTION of the threat of terrorism, including Bush, as you pointed out. This was a change for the better as it's more in line with reality. As you point out, terrorism existed before 9/11. We didn't take it seriously enough before 9/11, however. No one needed to be sold on a wholesale change in policy. It's obvious that changes were needed. Exactly what those changes are is still a point of debate, but your clai that no changes were necessary is ludicrous.
Vote for Pedro
Do you seriously think that any of this research really would make a difference to a terrorist or not?
How much high tech did it take to fly two planes into two buildings? The planes, that's it. And it's not like they even built the planes themselves.
Security by obscurity is not the way to go. Anybody who has any experience in real life with security (be it physical security, or more abstract as in network security) knows that security by obscurity is nothing more than a pillow to sleep on for those who are trying to protect themselves.
And when that "security" measure is hindering science.. I don't think I have to spell it out for you.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Present your results to the memebers of a classified US military project that helps us to fight the terrorists. This is the best option. You get your research read by the people who really matter.
Congratulations, you've just shown a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific progress happens.
Presenting it only to the US military will result in errors not getting caught by peer review. It'll mean each individual research team has to re-invent the wheel in their research, instead of building on other teams' experience and results.
Not only that, but many researchers have to show that they get papers published - having no papers published = dead career.
I think the event at 9/11 might be among the most negative events that have affected USA and probably far beyond what Osama bin Laden and his company had hoped for. I'm not sure he succeeded in the main goal with the act since the purpose of terrorism is almost always to create respect through fear. However, what they managed to do during the few seconds of the act, is to create enormous effects on the american society that is also reaching to other parts of the world. That terrorist act must have been one of the shortest, yet most affecting, event in recent history. When I think about it, only the nuclear bombs (released by USA ironically enough) in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to put an effective end to WW2 (in an arguably good way...) comes into mind. These were similar split-second events that changed the way how we think.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Science creates tools, means to ends, not ends in themselves. Tools have no morality in and of themselves, and so therefore their research should not be judged based upon what they could be used for. Final, production level products of that research, can and should be scrutinized for what they could be used for.
This, too, is pure ad hominem bullshit. The parent would not have to support complete unfettered access to firearms to be consistent. It's one thing to allow researchers unfettered access to materials for their research, but rather different to allow the end product of that research to be available to anyone.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
1. I was not specifically talking about McCarthy and the "super vast majority" of people he accused, more about the atmosphere of conformity and the risks of speaking out.
2. Nobody said the people I'm speaking of who oppose the U.S. government in certain policy issues are against the interests of the United States. Criticising your own government does NOT make you a traitor, sorry. That's a right you have.
3. I am not a U.S. citizen, merely someone who believes in the concepts on which it was founded. Happily, I won't have people screaming "Traitor!" in my face if I dare question what my government is doing.
POWs I believe you mean 'illegal combatants'. POWs have very clear rights as laid down by the geneva convention. 'Illegal Comabatant' is a highly nebulous term which is being used to deny these individuals their basic human rights. These include lack of legal advice, no contact with their respective embassies and cases of alleged torture.
> Sept. 11 changed everyone's PERCEPTION of the threat of terrorism, including Bush, as you pointed out. This was a change for the better as it's more in line with reality. As you point out, terrorism existed before 9/11. We didn't take it seriously enough before 9/11, however.
Arguably we've gone from underperceiving terrorism to overperceiving it.
Yeah, 9/11 was bad, but how many people have died in car wrecks since then, and how much do your hear about that on the news?
Or from a less parochial perspective, how many people in the world have died of AIDS or died in the various slaughters that have been running in Africa?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade