Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
--
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
You can't have scientific freedom without scientific responsibility.
...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.
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
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.
Why didn't they develop these?
They did:
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
> The problem is that, beyond the dynamite guy
You mean Nobel himself???
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.
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.
First entomology, then virology, and finally bioinformatics systems. Bugs follow me wherever I go.
News Flash: The Internet is the result of military research. So is the automobile.
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.
"... 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.
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)
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
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.
Sadly, AIDS kills heteros as well. Even more insidious, it uses fags to spread.
Apparently, smoking does kill.
May we never see th
"It means "V" for victory...." the invasion has started, the uber Chimps are comming, and attacking via the weakspot; anybody can run for president.
A problem cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created it.
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.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
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?
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.)
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.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Linus Pauling got the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1954 for work on chemical bonds and the Peace prize in 1962 for his guts...
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
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.
*meow!*
"...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?
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.
e /
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.plagu