Nobel Laureate Agre Fears for Scientific Freedom

Scared Scientists writes "Peter Agre, who has just won the Nobel Prize for research on cell membranes, is finally a scientist with enough recognition to speak out about the policy of intimidation against scientists by the Bush administration. He says, with respect to Thomas Butler, a plague expert, "He was arrested and taken away in chains ... This is something that's bothered many of us". Many scientists have been outspoken about these problems thus far, maybe a Nobel Prize laureate has enough influence to finally move something. He even wants to use some of his prize money to battle the intimidation by the government."

Comments

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Until now I had no idea such intimidation was happening. Now I will morally support the nobel laureate in question and fight for his or her cause. Truly a benevolent concern.

Re:Good.

[Mod Me God]

Why are scientists no more self interested than politicans...?

Politicians want money to further their grandeur, scientists want money to further theirs.

Remember if it wasn't for scientists trying to be great, there would be no nuclear weapons, little chemical weapons... if scientists had put their knowledge to true good they would have developed polution friendly methods of power, chemical weapons what made the enemy fall pass out instead of die...

Why didn't they develop these? Because they were on their own power trip of greatness.

Politicans only shuffle the cards, scientists are the ones that make them.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm afraid you're right, at least in some ways. I can't help thinking of the rewards for inventing or discovering something. Sure, betterment of mankind, yada yada yada, but recognition, money, fame, and saying "haw-haw!" to naysayers are pretty sweet too.

I'm sure there are still noble scientists out there, though.

Re:Good.

[Boglin]

I'm sorry, but your theory doesn't quite hold water. Yes, there's a lot of fame to be acquired in science. Just take a look at Jonas Salk, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, or Enrico Fermi. All these men are pretty much household names. So, yes, there's fame to be gained in science. However, look at their work. Two vaccines, one book of equations, and proof that the power of the atom could be harnassed. Now, let's contrast that with the guy who created Sarin gas, the men who first started isolating Anthrax, the man who developed dynamite, and the guy who found mustard gas. The problem is that, beyond the dynamite guy, I don't know who any of them are. And even he is more famous for his philanthropic work than his explosives. Science can be driven by greed and ego. However, the best power trips are given by developments that help man kind. For the most part, the weapons come from the mistakes. For instance, hypotheitcally say that a scientist does put his knowledge to true good and says that he wants to develop a method of power generation that doesn't polute. He then decides to use the power of the atom to do it. He creates a self sustaining nuclear pile that can be used to generate power. Unfortunately, it produces more radiation than he intended. Furthermore, he discovers that, if someone screw up at the plant, there's going to be a massive explosion. Thus, his drive for "true good" leads to a device that kills millions of people. He never intends for this to happen; he never intended for it to be developed at all.

Re:Good.

[adoll]

Remember if it wasn't for scientists trying to be great, there would be no nuclear weapons, little chemical weapons... if scientists had put their knowledge to true good they would have developed polution friendly methods of power, chemical weapons what made the enemy fall pass out instead of die...

Why didn't they develop these?

They did:

• no nuclear weapons: All the world except about a dozen countries is free of nuclear weapons. Canada has a very advanced nuclear power program and not a single nuclear weapon.
• Polution[sic] friendly methods of power: hydroelectric, geothermal, solar. They all exist and are used where they are practical. Note the word practical excludes stupidity like Oregon's wind farms that require 2c/kWh subsidies and a coal fired power plant to balance the grid power factor.
• chemical weapons where people pass out: pepper spray, tear gas, puke gas, and whatever that crap was the Russians used in to free several hundred people from the Chechen theatre hostage-takers a couple of years back (yes, there were fatalities from the gas, but some people did survive).

So if you really feal that humanity is going down the sewer in a hurry, please do us a favour and flush yourself now.

-AD

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

> The problem is that, beyond the dynamite guy

You mean Nobel himself???

Re:Good.

[ChickenAintDone]

Why does everyone think that military research is bad? Sure the atom bomb is a little bit of an overkill, but don't you think we learned a lot from actually splitting the atom? Also, most advances in military weaponry actually decreases casualties. If the government wants to blow up a building, it's going to launch explosives until it's gone, even if it takes out innocent bystanders and unthreatening buildings. So scientists make more accurate missiles, so there is less damage to unintended targets. You also ignore the point of funding. Scientists can't put their knowledge to true good without money, and who has money? The government. By running through the governments motions their knowledge is put to good use. You can not tell what the scientist's intent is, but you can clearly tell what it is with politicians. I don't see how you can compare their morals.

Re:Good.

[jhujoe]

News Flash: The Internet is the result of military research. So is the automobile.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Salk? Pasteur? Fermi, maybe. Newton, yes.

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you knew such intimidation was happening. Just look at what the activism industry does to scientists who produce results which do not agree with global warming theories.

Re:Good.

[sjames]

It is important to remember that when U.S. scientists were developing the atomic bomb, they knew that the Nazis were working on an A-bomb as well. As far as they could reasonable forsee at the time, the A-bomb was an inevitable reality. The only question is which world would be better, one where the Allies and Axis powers both had atomic bombs, or one where only the Axis did. Seen from that perspective, their actions are pretty understandable.

It took politicians from the U.S. and Soviet Union to create a cold war lasting for decades where neither side could apparently decide that blasting the entire world back to the stone age was not a winning proposition.

Funny how scientists who try to work on clean energy with no military application can never seem to get any funding whatsoever. The job of the scientist is to learn as much as possible about how things work in nature. The job of governments is to apply that knowledge to the betterment of society and mankind. Guess which one is the more successful?

Re:Good.

[Red Rocket]

Politicians want money to further their grandeur, scientists want money to further theirs.

You left out religious leaders. They have a big interest in keeping you afraid of an undetectable being so that you'll pony up on Sunday (or Wednesday, Friday, or Saturday as the deity dictates.)

... if scientists had put their knowledge to true good they would have developed polution [sic] friendly methods of power, chemical weapons what made the enemy fall pass out instead of die...Why didn't they develop these?

What makes you think they haven't? Scientists develop technologies and methods that are socially and environmentally friendly quite often. You just don't usually see them become widespread because corporations don't promote or market things that don't rake in big profits.
Scientists don't make products.

Re:Good.

[feralyn]

"...if scientists had put their knowledge to true good they would have developed polution friendly methods of power, chemical weapons what made the enemy fall pass out instead of die..."

scientists dont work for good or evil, they are just looking for what is factual. it is not personal, the uses to which thier discoveries go are not always up to them.
They are also subject to finding funding -- w/o funding, there is very little research that can be done in most areas.

there are scientists who are currently looking for friendly methods of power-- but they just dont get funded. (read: Oil Economy)

and as far as non-leathal weapons? Do you actually think that at least the US Military is even remotely interested in funding that?

Re:Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course military research is bad. It may be necessary at times but fundamentally it's a reflection of the worst of humanity, not the best.

a quest for knowledge

[Councilor Hart]

You don't have to know how to build an atomic bomb or how to create the killer-virus. But that doesn't mean humanity (read: scholars) hasn't have the right to know such things.
Sometimes you need to know the nasty things to get to the good things.
It's not knowledge, but applications that could be wrong/harmfull.
Perhaps Bush has read one book, one about the spanish inquisition.

Re:a quest for knowledge

[snot whistle]

actually, i think it was "hop on pop". maybe that was the one he needed help with. i know that 'The Very Hungry Caterpillar" is one of his favorites.

"presidenting for the compleate retard" is way beyond his level. daddy Dick has to read that one to him. when he can find him, that is.

Re:a quest for knowledge

[torpor]

Perhaps Bush has read one book, one about the spanish inquisition.

Bush can't read, he is illiterate and requires aides to read him everything.

Also, this is why his speeches totally suck, because he doesn't use a teleprompter (can't read) and instead listens to his lines prompted to him over a hearing-piece he wears just for the occasion.

Bush is the ultimate puppet president.

Not a problem

[falsification]

Oh, cry me a river. Physicists have dealt with the same situation--that some information cannot be made public--for decades. Now, in light of the possibility of a mass biological or chemical attack, the same practices are being extended to chemists and biologists. Agre protests too loudly.

You can't have scientific freedom without scientific responsibility.

Re:Not a problem

[ProgrammerCat]

So, governments should enforce "scientific responsibility" at gunpoint? The government should be trusted with the authority to decide what individuals are allowed to know? That way lies tyranny, falsification.

If you want to go there, fine. But don't support dragging the rest of humanity there with you. I cannot justify the FBI's actions in relation to those of Thomas Butler: who did Mr. Butler harm?

Re:Not a problem

[pauldy]

Government bad! People doing bad things not in government good!!

Alright Mr. Hatfield riddle me this, if our government didn't take action against someone who illegally brought biological agents into the country and lied about their disposal sold them to a terrorist later and they caused an outbreak that killed a couple hundred thousand people what would you have to say. What did they know and when did they know it.

Its impossible to please people who think that the government is inherently bad and while I agree it is a best practices approach to keep a close eye on them it is a better practice to know when. Sometimes this takes a little more common sense and a little less activism and I know that is not what you want to hear.

Re:Not a problem

[ProgrammerCat]

No, I would not say, "what did they know and when did they know it." I'd ask, "is the prosecution going for the death penalty?" I don't blame governments for the crimes of terrorists.

Also, pauldy, I'm not saying "government bad". I'm saying "government cannot be trusted". Government, like fire, has its uses. But would you want a fire to burn out of control?

Re:Not a problem

[pauldy]

If that is the case then why are you trying to make a case for a scientist who broke the law? I could understand if this was a scientist who "published a paper on" or "theorized about" and I would be right there with you. This does not appear to be the case here. I could be wrong and blind to the "truth" but according to the facts, I have seen he committed a crime the consequences of which should be real especially when it comes to matters of life and death.

What has me particularly fired up on this matter is the fact this "Scared Scientist" lays blame on the Bush administration instead of showing it the light that they are taking the steps necessary to protect the people of this country. On the same argument of keeping a close eye on our government our government should keep a close eye on the real threats to this country.

I know were every piece of equipment I have is and what it is being used for. I cannot imagine this so called practice of VIP or the laxed record keeping that lead to the false alarm that caused a waste of my tax payer dollars all because someone was to lazy to do things in a safe and professional manner.

I have been to the health and science center in Lubbock on several occasions and I understand the nature of life there is not nearly as fast paced as it is in most cities. It is however not an excuse to put the lives of the inhabitants of that city or any other city at risk because you don't feel like putting up with the paper work. The one place I do agree that they went over board is with the whole tax issue. Given some of the rulings that come out of our court systems I see why some prosecutors go for the jugular. I think it is a sad example of a broader social issue that extends far beyond this case into the idea that no one is responsible for their actions any more.

My race, my childhood, my mother, my father, my priest, my neighborhood, my education system, my government, anything but me.

Re:Not a problem

[ProgrammerCat]

> If that is the case then why are you trying to
> make a case for a scientist who broke the law?

A google search indicates that Butler is accused of 69 counts of "authorities and smuggling goods into the United States to embezzlement and fraud". He has not been convicted yet, so I see no reason to accept the government's word as gospel.

The burden of proof is on Uncle Sam, after all.

On the other hand I agree with you with regard to the "blame everything but yourself" meme so popular in this defective culture. I have to admit, though, that it can be as tempting a lie as those sold by most religions.

Re:Not a problem

[pauldy]

In a court of law of course you let the evidence speak for the guilt of an individual when confronted with a crime. However, this is not a court of law it is the court of public opinion. I personally cannot look past the fact that things were not handled properly under Mr. Butlers lead and as such he should accept the consequences.

Remember this all started with a lie (he lied about them going missing or he lied about "accidentally" destroying them). I do not understand how do people simply look past that and defend him as if he is holier than those who are sworn to defend our rights and freedoms. Not to be extremist but to me this ranks along the lines of defending Jose Padilla.

Re:Not a problem

[Tackhead]

> Also, pauldy, I'm not saying "government bad". I'm saying "government cannot be trusted". Government, like fire, has its uses. But would you want a fire to burn out of control?

Forests are pretty. Forests after fires aren't pretty. But forests without periodic fires to cleanse them of decades rotting wood and dried-out tinder are disasters in the making.

If you lie about illegally importing a biohazard, and lie again about what you did with it, what else might you be lying about?

Given the choice, I'll take a little backfire (which this looks like) now, or even a big brush fire (which is what even the most tinfoil-hatted anti-PATRIOT types fear) if the backfire gets out of control, if it ups the odds of preventing the kind of attack that would prompt a full-blown wildfire (on the order of, say, Stalin's purges) further down the road.

Sometimes a fire is good for a forest. I think this is one of those times.

Re:Not a problem

[danila]

The problem is that things like Stalin's purges are not the result of external forces. They are always born inside the state. And the only realistic method to prevent them is to limit the government in every conceivable way possible.

If you accept this little fire, government will start burning books 451-style before you can say "freedom of speech". Do you want that? I though so.

Ask yourself a question - what is more likely:
1) A government, abusing it's authority and commiting injustice on a large scale.
2) A gang of PhDs using their knowledge and capabilities to wreck havok on a large scale.

Act accordingly.

Security through obscurity

[El]

...should work just about as well for biological agents as it does for software -- i.e. not at all. Once the knowledge escapes from Pandora's box, you can't force it back in, short of lobotimizing everybody in the world... hmmm, maybe Bush is working on that -- then he might actually be one of the brightest minds left.

Re:Security through obscurity

[Red Rocket]

short of lobotimizing everybody in the world... hmmm, maybe Bush is working on that

He is, indirectly, via corporate media brainwashing. That's why 70% of US residents believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11, among other fallacies.
Break the corporate media backbone . . . promote and use P2P.

Agre ..a D student ?!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Agre described himself as a D-student in high school chemistry who was voted the most likely to succeed in his class."

There is hope for me yet !!

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, here I come !

Technological Development, Not STO

[airuck]

Biological weapons are indiscriminate by nature, making them useless in most battle scenarios. Unfortunately, even a primitive biological is an excellent tool for terrorizing civilian populations. Parallels with the nuclear physics are not valid. There are just too many paths toward the development of this kind of terror weapon to support security through obscurity. A far more realistic path is to develop advanced diagnostics with the ability to detect components and whole pathogens.

Without diagnostics, each person is a potential conduit of disease. With diagnostics, every person is a potential sentinel.

michael's at it again

[helix400]

Another anti-Bush, anti-government article...approved my michael. Why am I not surprised?

Not that I'm saying this story is without merit, I'm just saying michael's a pathetic editor because he shoves honesty aside by frequently approving opinionated and exaggerated stories. It seems michael could care less about protraying the truth when he's got an activist bone to pick.

In this case article writer decided to spin story by saying "policy of intimidation against scientists by the Bush administration". Never did the article mention Bush...why throw him in there? He also selects one overexaggerated quote from the article, while ignoring the nobel prize winner's main focus of just protesting his perceived loss of academic freedoms.

The article was spinned well and michael loved it. Gotta love the Slashdot science section. Science and truth takes a backseat for heresay and opinion.

Re:michael's at it again

[pauldy]

I have to say that this is the world we live in were people who actually know how to use their brains to think through situations and arrive at logical conclusions are marked as flaimbait. Just more proof they don't want you to think for yourself.

Re:michael's at it again

[0x0d0a]

He decided to include a bit of an editorial, but I've seen far, far more misleading material in stories on Slashdot than this.

Also, Bush is one of the few points where I have a really difficult time shooting down criticism. Bush *has* done some very frusterating things over the past two years.

Re:michael's at it again

[Red Rocket]

Trying to enforce a little political correctness, are we?

If the article would have blamed things on Bill Clinton, you probably would have just nodded in agreement and moved on.

Re:michael's at it again

[derubergeek]

Unfortunately, I haven't paid much attention to the particular editors of science articles at Slashdot, so I'm unable to give an informed opionion on your specific points.

I will say that my perception is that /. is no less sensational than the Drudge Report, or NPR. Like NPR, /. puts a prettier face on it perhaps, but when it comes down to it, the Science section doesn't seem to contain much scientific discussion. I find peer reviewed journal web sites to be a better source of scientific information than an opinion site such as /.

Just my opinion to add to the millions of others. Woo hah.

Re:michael's at it again

[MrLint]

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20030904/04

So tell me which administration is this happening under? I dont see jimmy carter around anymore.

Since The white house is in charge these things are happening under the bush administration. and legitimately so, regardless if the article says it or not. The guys at the tops are still responsible for the actions of the minions.

Also which truth are you insinuating isn't being portrayed. Put some money where your eating orifice is instead of merely adding your own hearsay an opinion.

Not worth defending

[Orne]

"... specifically citing the criminal case of Texas plague expert Thomas Butler who has been charged by federal authorities after he reported he lost some plague samples. Prosecutors said he illegally transported samples from Tanzania and lied to the FBI about how he disposed of them."

There is an old saying, "Is this the hill you want to die on?" If I was going to speak out about scientists being harassed by the government, I wouldn't choose to defend one that was caught lying about illegally importing plague, and lost them! We're not talking fuzzy bunnies here, this is a toxic substance, scientific negligence, and fraud. How about we defend leaking classified rocket technology to the Chinese? Information wants to be free, after all. Or what if someone "accesses" a computer, downloads, and distributes the source code to a soon-to-be-released game? Oh, the oppression!

This man made some awesome discoveries, and for that he was awarded. Of all people, you would think he'd recognize bad scientific practices. I can only hope that he never engaged in moving his samples like this other scientist... but now you have to wonder why he'd defend it.

Re:Not worth defending

[esquimaux]

...but now you have to wonder why he'd defend it.

Hey, that's a really funny parody of McCarthy.

It was a parody, right?

Re:Not worth defending

[pauldy]

How is this even close to a parody of McCarthy? What thinking logically and evaluating the situation is somehow reminiscent of McCarthy. Are you a member of the American Communist Party?

Re:Not worth defending

[js7a]

How about we defend leaking classified rocket technology to the Chinese?

Just out of curiosity, what makes you think the Chinese are at all a threat to any western nation? I know it's a common enough suspicion, but I just don't get it. From where I stand, China has become heavily dependent on trade with the west, and Chinese politicians don't want to risk losing business to other developing nations. Siince their economic reforms of the early 1990s, they are in some ways much more capitalistic and unregulated than the U.S., and their military is headed by a former president, who was generally thought to be a dove on all China's regional issues, including Taiwan.

Shouldn't you refer to North Korea instead?

Re:Not worth defending

[torpor]

China has been a threat to the stability of the United States since the 1800's, which is *why* there are such tight trading ties between the two countries - free trade agreements are the first defense, since it ties the economies of the two nations to a common cause.

Why is China a threat? Simple: its population, which is freakin' HUUUUGE. It is the hungriest, largest, most virile demographic of humanity on the planet. If that population gets hungry maybe, 2 or 3 years in a row (drought, epidemics, famine), then its time for war. There is no leeway.

Chinese leaders know this, and it is a fundamental cause for their Communist doctrines, which are geared to maintain control of the countrys' infrastructure during times of massive problems in the Chinese populace.

You'd better believe China is still a threat. It is the largest collection of humans under one flag, ever.

Re:Not worth defending

[danila]

Get your facts straight. People like you started a war on Iraq over non-existing weapons of mass destruction and other people like you believed them.

Most virile?

Population growth rate (China, 2003): 0.6% Population growth rate (USA, 2003): 0.92% That's not even counting migration.

Largest?

May be, but with current population growth rates India will become the largest in only 25 years

Hungriest?

No way. China managed to fed the whole billion a long time ago. Pick any African country and chances are it's hungrier.

You are just another living proof that a low Slashdot ID doesn't give immunity from stupidity.

Re:Not worth defending

[torpor]

Give me a freaking break.

DO NOT JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS ABOUT MY CHARACTER SIMPLY BASED ON A POSTING TO /.

The only thing that would give you right to pass such rapid judgement would be your own stupidity.

As for statistics - I know where I get my stats, I do not know where you get yours, but virile does *NOT* mean 'population growth'.

virile-
Having or showing masculine spirit, strength, vigor, or power.

Now go back and re-read what I said.

The Chinese people have their own weapons of mass destruction, and their own reasons for doing things with them which may - or may NOT - have a large impact on the world. The point is: they have the weapons, those weapons *could* be used as a very large threat to the world, this *must* be planned for by any goverment elected to protect its people. NO, CHINA IS NOT THE ONLY THREAT TO THE WORLD, JUST -POTENTIALLY- ONE OF THE ABSOLUTE BIGGEST. Ranking right up there with good ol' United States of America, don't you worry...

Why, exactly, should we plan for such massive threats?

Think Chinese officials can't be corrupted just as easily as Westerners when it comes to free arms dealing on world weapons markets? How well do you know the Chinese keep control of their nuclear weapons - as well as you might now about the American/NATO stockpiles, perhaps?

And if you don't think the Chinese have Their Own Version of The New American Right Neo-Cons, willing (and able) to wage war on whoever they deem to be their own threat, then you're not just an illiterate pseudo-humanist-intellect weasle looking to make cheap shots, (I love name-calling, particularly when its my turn to serve...), you're a freaking moron as well.

Now, I'm not saying you are those things, just that you would be - in my eyes, say I actually knew you well enough to feel comfortable with such an assement - and were you not to share this view and become aware of its dangers.

With regards to the 'hunger of China' - yes, they have fed themselves, but if you haven't noticed how many times they *haven't* fed themselves, you haven't been paying any atention at all - and, as the population gets larger, the problems of its food supply get bigger. What, exactly, do you think the WTO gets together to discuss, if it isn't solutions to the "Earth Economic/Food Model" problem? I'll give you a clue: every human being needs to eat, so count em. Who has how many?

And as for this:

You are just another living proof that a low Slashdot ID doesn't give immunity from stupidity.

Typical Western Bourgeois bigotry.

Set up a false standard, and wound someone else with it, hypocrite!

Low sid indeed ... as if that ever matters when it comes to stupidity. Twerp.

Re:Not worth defending

[danila]

Excuse me my mistake - English is not my first language. Sorry. :( And sorry for my little attempt at name-calling, I take it back. Peace? :)

But, using the correct definition of virility, what makes you think Chinese are the most virile? Why not French, or Swedish, or Egyptian? Why not Russia, for example? Why do you want to consider the country which have shown such patience in the past? What would the USA do if China openly supported Alaska in trying to defect from the US, if China bombed a US embassy and if China launched a spy-plane over the US and then threatened it after it was shot down? What would the US do? Now, remind me, who was the greatest threat on this planet?

how many times they *haven't* fed themselves
So what? And how many times Americans haven't supplied themselves with electricity? Does that mean they are going to attack some Middle-East countries to solve their oil problems? Oh... nevermind.

What, exactly, do you think the WTO gets together to discuss
The horrendous policies of so called civilized nations that fight any attempts to liberase food markets, may be? The food problem is a problem of distributing it, not growing enough.

Who has how many?
Americans surely like to eat till they literally explode. Some fasting certainly wouldn't hurt most of them. And don't let me started on their total consumption per capita, other than food.

Re:Not worth defending

[torpor]

When I answered this question:

"Now, remind me, who was the greatest threat on this planet?"

It was more like:

Now, remind me, who was the greatest threat on this planet ... to Americans?

I'm not saying China is. I'm just saying its a big one.

The Man Should Be given another..

[annisette]

Nobel Prize for guts.//Some People stay on the outside occasionaly looking in, Most stay in the inside thinking it is everything.(O.O.M.O)

Even a Nobel Prize Winner can be Wrong

[reporter]

Scientific freedom has its limits. Suppose that an applied physicist wishes to research how to build a better bazooka. Is the physicist allowed to build a working bazooka in his laboratory without restriction or interference from the federal government?

The issue with Thomas Butler is that he lied to FBI agents about how he disposed of samples of the plague. In terms of deadliness, the plague is far worse than any bazooka. So, the FBI agents justifiably arrested him. The government is entitled to protect its citizens.

Nonetheless, Dr. Peter Agre deserves his Nobel prize. He is a fine example of native talent (not foreign talent like H-1B workers) at its best. We need not worry about diminishing the quality of American research if the government were to restrict -- or even, completely eliminate -- foreign workers who enter the USA to work at its scientific labs.

... from the desk of the reporter

Re:AIDS RULES!

[0x0d0a]

Sadly, AIDS kills heteros as well. Even more insidious, it uses fags to spread.

Apparently, smoking does kill.

Hey, I know this one...

[the_DaRKaNGLe]

"It means "V" for victory...." the invasion has started, the uber Chimps are comming, and attacking via the weakspot; anybody can run for president.

Re:AIDS RULES!

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, being alive will lead to your death some day

yeah

[SHEENmaster]

But not even scholars should be allowed knowledge about the mysterious "shit" key and its extra functions in Windows. That's just hiding behind acadamia for the purposes of terrorism.

It has happened before...

[KjetilK]

Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1954 for work on chemical bonds and the Peace prize in 1962 for his guts...

Re:It has happened before...

[ps_inkling]

Following the peace prize link, and reading the speech brings this:

The armaments race created an atmosphere which not only made it difficult to work for the promotion of disarmament and peace but also threatened to muzzle freedom of speech.

Inevitably, the crusade lost impetus and faded away.

But Linus Pauling marched on; for him, retreat was impossible.

I hope that after we determine that we are not going to 100% eliminate the "terror threat" and regain some sense (and abolish some laws), that our excesses are not forgotten.

Public opinion is irrelevant.

[ProgrammerCat]

Say what you like about public opinion, pauldy, but I myself agree with Vanderbilt: the public be damned. If this is still a nation ruled by law and not men, then opinion should be utterly irrelevant. What are the facts? Has the government proven either Butler or Padilla guilty of any of the charges against them?

The government says that Butler lied. The government says lots of things. Where's the proof?

Me, I'll wait for the jury to reach a verdict. They've better access to the evidence than I do, and are therefore better qualified to judge Butler.

Re:Public opinion is relevant.

[pauldy]

Butler did lie one way or the other bottom line thats not "the government saying" thats the facts. Either the vials were destroyed or they were misplaced, one or the other, not both. This is the only thing I have made my mind up about because of the facts. This however is enough for me to at least consider the possibility that the allegations might have merit and allows me to consider that this is not simply a government conspiracy trying to intimidate scientists throughout the nation. It must take a lot of animosity to ignore it.

Here is a good link to fill in any blanks. You can ignore it if you want.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/16/missing.plague /