Slashdot Mirror


US Military Program Could Be Seen As a Bioweapon, Scientists Warn (phys.org)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: A research arm of the U.S. military is exploring the possibility of deploying insects to make plants more resilient by altering their genes. Some experts say the work may be seen as a potential biological weapon. In an opinion paper published Thursday in the journal Science, the authors say the U.S. needs to provide greater justification for the peace-time purpose of its Insect Allies project to avoid being perceived as hostile to other countries. Other experts expressed ethical and security concerns with the research, which seeks to transmit protective traits to crops already growing in the field. That would mark a departure from the current widely used procedure of genetically modifying seeds for crops such as corn and soy, before they grow into plants.

The military research agency says its goal is to protect the nation's food supply from threats like drought, crop disease and bioterrorism by using insects to infect plants with viruses that protect against such dangers. The State Department said the project is for peaceful purposes and does not violate the Biological Weapons Convention. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said its scientists are part of the research, which is being conducted in contained labs. The technology could work in different ways. In the first phase, aphids -- tiny bugs that feed by sucking sap from plants -- infected plants with a virus that temporarily brought about a trait. But researchers are also trying to see if viruses can alter the plant's genes themselves to be resistant to dangers throughout the plant's life.

91 comments

  1. A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anything might be a bio weapon. this is a bit bonkers. Just as any high energy physics, rocketry, encryption algorithm, or computer could be a weapon and probably is.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Anything might be a bio weapon. this is a bit bonkers. Just as any high energy physics, rocketry, encryption algorithm, or computer could be a weapon and probably is.

      On a few occasions, I think my farts were just that.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    2. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
      Why do we constantly keep trying to FUCK with the food supply?

      This is critical to our lives, and I'm a bit concerned with we try to fsck with mother nature a bit too much too FAST.

      One really bad mistake using vectors like this and well, it could wipe out the planets food sources potentially.

      "Nature finds a way"...as I seem to have heard mentioned before.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re: A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because greed is good!!

    4. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a few occasions, I think my farts were just that.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    5. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by hey! · · Score: 1

      Sure, a pointed stick and an atom bomb are both weapons. But the fact that the same word can be used to describe both of them doesn't mean that you should treat them equivalently.

      As a weapon, this one would have more negative side-effects than an atom bomb, and the explanation that they're doing this to somehow protect our crops from other countries' biological weapons doesn't pass the sniff test. If there were some general, broad-spectrum means of protecting crops from any possible disease, that'd be quite an accomplishment.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    6. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way: quick cure for overpopulation.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    7. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Why do we constantly keep trying to FUCK with the food supply?

      Yeah! We should just keep using the same things we've been using since Sumer and Tyre were a big deal! There's no reason at all to suppose we can, well, improve crop yields or anything.

      Do note that, absent the improvements made in crops since I was born, we'd be having mass famines now. Seven billion people aren't going to be fed with the crops of the 1940's, much less those of the 1840's....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by volodymyrbiryuk · · Score: 1

      Or the world population wouldn't have grown as fast.

      --
      sudo rm -r -f --no-preserve-root /
    9. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by shaitand · · Score: 2

      "As a weapon, this one would have more negative side-effects than an atom bomb, and the explanation that they're doing this to somehow protect our crops from other countries' biological weapons doesn't pass the sniff test."

      Exactly. Frankly I'd be less alarmed if they were trying to develop this as an offensive weapon. The military genetically modifying domestic plants to produce... just about anything they wish chemically, and that includes heirloom plants. Sounds like a sci-fi nightmare to me.

      Consider the current political environment, with all the tensions and extremes, now throw something in to make people edgy and paranoid into common crops. Now maybe you think THAT is paranoid but conspiracy and coordinated mass effort are the bread and butter of the military. Assuming they are up to something might make you crazy, assuming they aren't makes you naive, assuming they could be and that anything that can be misused will eventually be misused is just due diligence. All it would take is one bad actor in the white house between now and ever. We the people shouldn't stand for it.

    10. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Do note that, absent the improvements made in crops since I was born, we'd be having mass famines now. Seven billion people aren't going to be fed with the crops of the 1940's, much less those of the 1840's....

      I"m not terribly concerned that we cannot grow enough food for ourselves in the US, without all the new GMO's, pesticides and now....genetic insects modifying our foods.

      Since when did the US have 7 billion citizens to worry about?

      It isn't our responsibility too feed and otherwise support the whole world.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      ....the explanation that they're doing this to somehow protect our crops from other countries' biological weapons doesn't pass the sniff test. If there were some general, broad-spectrum means of protecting crops from any possible disease, that'd be quite an accomplishment.

      A general broad-spectrum means to protect crops from disease, like harnessing a wide-ranging pervasive insect to deliver a counter-measure to acres of vital croplands? Yeah, that would be quite an accomplishment.

      This sounds like a perfect example of science/technology that is slightly far-fetched and high risk, but with high potential public benefit that the US gov't should be doing to lay the groundwork until private industry can run with it. (See also: nuclear power, GPS, solar cells, battery technology, internet, space travel, computers, anti-malaria medicine, etc.)

      Besides, another country will do similar research anyway and there are many countries I trust far less than the US to responsibly conduct sensitive research on crop diseases. Whether it's DoD, NSF, NIST, CDC, EPA, USDA, NASA, NOAA, VA, DOE, etc. who cares, get it done.

    12. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by gnick · · Score: 2

      It isn't our responsibility too feed and otherwise support the whole world.

      Some people don't like the idea of human starvation, even if it's not their responsibility. For some reason they care about people they've never even met. Damned bleeding-hearts.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    13. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do we constantly keep trying to FUCK with the food supply?

      This is critical to our lives, and I'm a bit concerned with we try to fsck with mother nature a bit too much too FAST.

      One really bad mistake using vectors like this and well, it could wipe out the planets food sources potentially.

      "Nature finds a way"...as I seem to have heard mentioned before.

      We’ve fucked with the food supply since... farming. The thing that allowed us to graduate from hunting and gathering.

      You should need a high school degree to post on /. FFS.

    14. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah let 'em starve!!

      Enjoy your spot in hell

    15. Re: A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because water intensive crops drive out independent farmers rather effectively. (thirsty plants are healthy plants... subject of a big Monsanto case)

    16. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I don't think this generation's goal ought to be to drive the population to zero. Sure, as a nation, we hardly ever meet our goals, but what if some of us are overachievers?

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    17. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Life's a bitch, and then you overachieve!

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    18. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      So we can feed more people?

      I mean, have you looked at the wild/original/natural variants of "bananas" or "wheat" or "corn"? Notice how much less food is on that food.

      Don't get me wrong, I understand the concern. And the fact that one of the biggest players in the field is a poster-child for cyberpunk dystopian megacorporations is more than a little concerning. And this time is a little different thanks to the expanded scope of possibilities and increased rate of change that modern genetic engineering provides.

      But the alternatives is swaths of humanity starving to death and likely taking down their surrounding social structures and nations along with them.

    19. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Why do we constantly keep trying to FUCK with the food supply?

      Because the population of our planet has grown way, way beyond what can be fed by traditional means. Famine and starvation have been greatly reduced within the last couple of decades due to new technologies in food production.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    20. Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are humans a bio-weapon? What if they are armed with guns?

  2. the downside of inviting outer space in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's very cold & there's no oxygen.. cease fire stand down.. truth+mercy=justice.. no heart no spirit no life..

    1. Re:the downside of inviting outer space in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's very cold & there's no oxygen..

      It's cold outside. There's no kind of atmosphere. I'm all alone; more or less. Watch me fly...

  3. XFiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could use bees. Wasn't that the delivery method in the first X-Files movie?

  4. What's the over/under by TVmisGuided · · Score: 1

    ...on the incoming number of "welcoming our insect overlords" jokes?

    --
    All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
  5. Why not use bioweapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already use our drones to blow up our enemies by remote control like a bunch of cowards... why not go full-coward & use bioweapons.

    Its not like the US has any shred of respectability left. May as well own it.

    1. Re:Why not use bioweapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with the current state of the tech, nuclear weapons have collateral effects that inconvenience unintended victims and shorten their lives. Short-lived chemical weapons are worse than nuclear in that regard, poisoning indiscriminately guided by uncontrolled factors.

      Biological weapons make chemical weapons look sane. On top of the sculpted virus being impossible to "herd" once it is released, high-reproduction single-cell (or less) organisms (or portions thereof) have very high mutation rates, which is the bigger risk of the research in this article.

      As for your opinion of politics, our enemies are usually blowing up civilians by cell-phone triggered explosives, so my main issue with combat drone use is the innacuracy of their target identification protocols. If a $2,000,000 RC piloted bomber-drone is no better at identifying actual targets than a $20 alarm clock hooked up to some homemade explosives, then it is a worthless investment in both hardware and training.

    2. Re:Why not use bioweapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Move then. seriously, get the fuck out. Neither you or your pussy ass remarks will be missed.

    3. Re:Why not use bioweapons by shaitand · · Score: 1

      My issue with RC drones is that is lowers the bar to get people to murder other people. But lets be honest, the military is working on AI drones. Automated drone weaponry, automated defenses, attack resistant crops, etc. At what point do we become concerned that the wealthy are holding onto all the property and will soon be able to keep and maintain it without the rest of us? More importantly, they are developing the means to protect it from us without having to rely on us to be the muscle. Do you know what the greedy will do when they can have everything to themselves without consequence? They'll have everything to themselves, obviously.

    4. Re:Why not use bioweapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not about "respectability;" it's about whether or not it's a good idea.

      The reason bioweapons (a well as some other forms of "WMD") are traditionally discouraged is that it's too easy to end up in a friendly fire situation. I release a plague on you, and then somehow my own citizens end up infected. Or that cloud of mustard gas that we thought was going to blow east, ended up going west. I hit you with Roundup, thinking that my farmers' crops are more resistant to it than yours, and then oops, those great imports from that neutral third world country that we enjoy so much, are suddenly down too.

      Remote operated missile platforms generally don't have that problem.

      Generally.

      Usually. Probably. Most people think it's a sane gamble.

      Not sure what "cowards" have to do with this. In 100% of military situations, you ideally want to win without the opposition having the slightest chance. If you're "fighting with honor" then you're a horrible, incompetent warrior and as a taxpayer I want you the fuck out of there. I never, ever want to hear about any member of the military who isn't what you would call a "coward." Your "cowards" are the ones with the very best attitude, and I think this is one of the few examples of something the US gets right.

      Alas, one of the side-effects of this level of performance is that it causes the military to be vastly overused. We kill a lot of people who might not have needed to be killed. And we pay for it through the nose, too. But I love the "cowardice."

    5. Re:Why not use bioweapons by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The need for really great NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical) suits and the skills needed to work with that perfectly all the time is the problem.
      The heat and weight of such systems and the need for the best filters that work 100% all the time.

      For the USA to use bioweapons would need a very skilled and well trained military.
      The average IQ, health, fitness, strength and numbers of a skilled troops the USA cannot cover the skills needed.
      The USA cant keep up with the needed numbers of fit smart people to fill its conventional special forces.

      The storage of existing bioweapons in labs for "testing" is difficult enough.

      Bioweapons don't really give a win needed. A nations own troops will have to move over the same land that "bioweapons" got used in and then risk doing clean up.
      Thats a huge waste of time and effort to remove all traces of bioweapons to win. With any break down in protection resulting in a total loss of confidence.

      Using economic methods to reduce the productive capacity of a nation would be a use of "bioweapons". That does not need all of a nations troops in NBC suits.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. It is easy to see why it is a military program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have a killer gene instead, have the insect released over the enemy territory, watch them die abjectly of famine. And there are even more gross application i can imagine... That's why it is a USM program. Other country beware and escalate with your own or be left behind.

    1. Re:It is easy to see why it is a military program by hey! · · Score: 1

      This is appealing to a certain mentality, I suppose, and there are some in our military and government who unquestionably have that mentality.

      This is like the massive, impractical MOAB bomb, or reactivating those old WW2 battleships; it's something that has a kind of juvenile emotional appeal because of its sheer destructiveness. But really our needs are served better by precision and control than wholesale destruction. That's because we fight wars to get people do do things, not to obliterate them. A single 500 pound GPS bomb works better than flattening entire cities, like we did to Dresden. If you could somehow teleport a firecracker into a single person's ear that would be even more effective.

      That's why nuclear weapons don't really serve our warfighting needs. We have them because once they existed we had no choice, but they're just too crude in their effect to be useful. And if nuclear weapons are crude, something like this, weaponized, would be orders of magnitude worse.

      This is a weapon for having, not using. And if we have it, others will want to have it, and proliferation will be a thousand times harder to control than nuclear proliferation.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  7. Whats the betting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whats the betting that they are also researching ways to make plants toxic, harvests fail, or insects that change people's genes to kill them.

    1. Re: Whats the betting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that being the projects actual purpose is too obvious to bet on

  8. Re:BioWeapon This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump mad? Like a rabid dog Trump is mad. That's not mad, that's out of his mind insane.

  9. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Politics has always been that way. It is about power and money and control. Politicians don't care about anything else. America isn't defined by our politicians, but our people.

  10. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha ha ha. No.

    The current party politics and their sham presidents are nothing more than dystopian smoke-screens to distract the peons from what is really going on. During the Kavenaugh circus, the US House of Representatives snuck through a bill (Bipartisan too!) to give more tax breaks to the rich. You heard about that on the news, right? Of course not, because getting another crap-tastic lawyer appointed to the default law-making bench is so much more entertaining.

    There is no more representational democracy for the people, just for the rich. The rest are just laws to keep the workers in check.

    Welcome to 1984 version 2.0. The part of Big Brother will be played by Bozo the Clown.

  11. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > the U.S. needs to provide greater justification for the peace-time purpose

    The US is at war >90% of the time.

    It's especially ludicrous to attempt peace-time justifications while one is currently waging war in six different countries.

  12. A nice, shiny new fork. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A nice, shiny new fork.
    Useful eating utensil, or deadly weapon?!?!
    Who knew INTENT was important in deciding the outcome of things?

    1. Re:A nice, shiny new fork. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just leave this here.

  13. File this under the column... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What could possibly go wrong?

    I imagine we are doing this because some other country was dumb enough to start ahead of us (China, Russia, N. Korea).

    Oh well, in about a month I, along with everyone else in the US, get to vote in a new set of clowns to DC.

  14. Old news much? by DalM · · Score: 2

    Is this a headline from the 1980's?

    Seriously. This is literally the same conspiracy theory the Soviets believed the US was doing in the 1980's. It was even a featured story line in the tv show "the Americans".

    1. Re:Old news much? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I guess for there to be any chance that this is valid, it needs to be a fresh accusation... because there's no chance that alleged programs like this might have been in existence for a while.

      Either that, or you need to figure out what you were trying to imply.

    2. Re: Old news much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this time itâ(TM)s not a conspiracy theory, they admitted theyâ(TM)re doing it.

      Designer viruses that disperse and genetically modify food crops (or anything else) on a massive scale has only *very* dubious peaceful uses, but has been a longstanding feature of military wet dreams and dystopian futurism.

    3. Re: Old news much? by DalM · · Score: 1

      This would be the dumbest covert assult possible. Why would we do this? If such a virus, or weevil, or mite, or whatever was actually released into the environment there would be a 100% chance that it would eventually find its way to the US farms and kill our crops.

      Further, this isn't really America's kind of warfare. We are much more into blowing up stuff using really really really expensive bombs and cruise missiles in a massive display Armageddon d*ck waving, then we are into this kinds of deniable, slow war of attrition.

    4. Re:Old news much? by DalM · · Score: 1

      There is no chance that alleged programs like this have been "in existence for a while". You know why? Because people would be involved. Lots of people. And sooner or later someone would be talking about their work on making super-weevils on the internet. That's the biggest logical flaw with conspiracy theories. It's not that conspiracies don't exist, but that it's impossible to keep people quiet about them.

      If this conspiracy program had existed since the 1980's it would not be a theory. We would know about it.

    5. Re: Old news much? by PPH · · Score: 1

      has only *very* dubious peaceful uses

      Actually, it has much more utility when used peacefully. Weaponizing such a capability risks the genetic modification spreading into non combatants' crops. Or even our own. On the other hand, propagating disease resistance protects our food sources. But should such a beneficial trait spread world-wide, it would also protect the crops of our adversaries. Making them less likely to go to war with us over food. A win-win situation. Unless your goal is to incite uprisings and eventual war by spreading starvation and disease throughout potential enemy populations. Then, this is a potentially devastating technology.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  15. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    ...and the democrat party is currently trying to make sure we don't go that far down

    I honestly don't quite know what the democrat party is trying to promote.

    A large faction seems to be really trying to pull the party WAY left (US left) and that bothers me, there are actual candidates there promoting socialism.

    I hope that's not the direction they move.

    But that aside, I do long for the old days where both sides could actually work together. I remember how Reagan and Tip O'Neil, tho so far apart politically, could still work together and even have a drink or two when the day was over. The debates weren't personal, and both sides were more respectful of the other side's different views.

    I don't know when or if we'll ever get to where each side isn't out to punish the other.

    It seems to just keep escalating.

    I know I'm a bit biased on the conservative side, but wow....when Obama won, I didn't see the violence and widespread protests that fall into riots like we do with the left since Trump won. It seems to be just escalating and I"m concerned.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  16. Bit by bit, you lose it all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, now it's the military that guards our crops is it? Time for a 30% across the board cut in the Defense budget, including the black budget. Get rid of a few more nukes while we're at it. It's stupid to think Congress could keep a real conflict from going nuclear within a couple days; the last time the Constitution asked them to do their job they all called in sick.

  17. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    President Bezos the Clown, eventually,

  18. This is just a basic research project by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    on crop yields pretending to be a "military" project because Americans won't pay for anything that isn't "Defense". Norm Chomsky talked about this, the video's still up on Youtube somewhere. When Reagan hit and began slashing fed money in order to fund his tax cuts the only way to get any basic research done was to find a reason why it was "Defense" spending, since that's a sacred cow here.

    Christ but we Americans do a lot of silly things...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is just a basic research project by gtall · · Score: 2

      Reagan didn't slash fed money to fund his tax cuts. In fact, he got taken to the cleaners by Tip O'Neill who promised to cut expenditures but didn't. Reagan initially thought he could cut fed money for research but ultimately that never happened because some of the programs he wanted required basic research. So stop making shit up. And relying on Noam Chomsky isn't a point in your favor.

      Now the current and fake president probably will result in lower R&D spending outside of DoD. The only way he'll succeed in doing this is with the cooperation of Republicans in Congress who are more than happy to declare the only science we'll ever need is either in the Bible or created by companies. Any Party that holds Marsha Blackburn (R) of Tennessee in high regard cannot be trusted with the reins of power.

    2. Re:This is just a basic research project by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That is certainly true enough. Most government money into research is funneled through the defense budget. It isn't just Reagan, we saw how well it worked for the Nazi's.

    3. Re:This is just a basic research project by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      ...worked for the Nazi's.

      Godwin argument = fail. The poor grammar is the icing on your loser cake.

    4. Re:This is just a basic research project by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Yet again, with nothing but harsh criticism, and nothing positive to say. You wonder why people tune out the Left these days?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:This is just a basic research project by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      on crop yields pretending to be a "military" project because Americans won't pay for anything that isn't "Defense"....the only way to get any basic research done was to find a reason why it was "Defense" spending... Christ but we Americans do a lot of silly things...

      ^ Yeah, basically.
      The Department of Defense does a lot pure science and tech research that isn't always about killing people, and even the "deadly" research can have high civilian value. Drones can shoot missiles or survey land for development. Nuclear energy can power bombs, submarines and aircraft carriers, or civilian carbon-free power plants. Radar can track enemy missiles or help keep commercial airplanes from crashing in mid-air. GPS can aim bombs or give people directions on road trip. Robots can sweep for mines and break into terrorist strongholds or build cars in factories and vacuum people's floors while they are away. The internet was a DoD program once. The list of beneficial military to civilian technologies is long. I have no great love for the military, but I do support science and technology and if it's through the military, so be it. If the research has potential value, but being under the Department of Defense bothers people emotionally, then move the funding over to another research institution (e.g. CDC, USDA, EPA, NIST, DOI, etc.), but don't don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    6. Re:This is just a basic research project by shaitand · · Score: 1

      I didn't compare anyone to Nazi's... our government literally saw that funneling research funding through the military worked well for the Nazi's who undoubtedly produced some of the most advanced technology in the world in their day. We and the Russian's both stole their ideas along with their scientists.

    7. Re:This is just a basic research project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was the British who squashed the Nazi's research into the tremendous health threat of cigarette smoking and the Party's program to wipe it out in the country. It's in the Wikipedia page. For the next few minutes anyway.

    8. Re:This is just a basic research project by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Not everything the Nazi's did was bad or wrong. People forget that there was more to Nazi Germany than racism and genocide.

    9. Re:This is just a basic research project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her husband is the founder of the International Bow Tie Society (IBTS).

      I had to check to see if this was something like the Masons which doesn't have to do with Masonry, but no, it seems to be a society for the promotion of bow ties, especially as preferable to long ties.

      I found this to be the most endearing thing on the wiki page for Marsha.

  19. kinda funny by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    "How dare you risk making our plants more resilient?"

    1. Re:kinda funny by Calydor · · Score: 1

      It's not making the plants more resilient that's the problem.

      It's step 2 which sounds something like, "Okay, and now we make them POISONOUS."

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    2. Re:kinda funny by shaitand · · Score: 1

      First of all, what limits them to their stated objective... not just today, anyone from ever using this for something other than making plants more resilient? Even making plants more resilient is an issue because plant genetics tend to get spread around.

    3. Re: kinda funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      making plants more resilient this way is impractical and needlessly complicated. the only thing this technique could be practically useful for is attempting to induce famines.

    4. Re:kinda funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How dare you risk making our plants more resilient?"

      Uh huh, sure.

      A research arm of the U.S. military is exploring the possibility of deploying insects to make plants more resilient by altering their gene

      When a military organization is investigating how to get insects to inject viruses into plants to change their genes, you have to ask yourself ... does the military usually spend time researching crop yields?

      If you can do it for peacetime applications, you can do it for wartime applications, and one assumes someone is well aware of the wartime applications.

      Would you, say, trust it if the North Korean or Russian military were doing "peaceful" research into delivering plant genes? Why should anyone else trust that this isn't a quick flip away from going from beneficial to weaponized?

      In this case, you could literally make a change to something which was designed to wipe out crops with very little additional effort.

      Sorry, but I'm afraid the rest of the world can no longer really trust the intentions of the US, because you have a batshit crazy president. "Trust us", isn't going to cut it here.

    5. Re:kinda funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weaponization concerns come from things like the fact we already know gene modifications to make plants sterile. The ability to create famines like that are incredibly dangerous.

      The other half is that delivery by insect is completely uncontrollable and will easily spread beyond any initial deployment area. That's why it's compared to a biological weapon because a weaponized bacteria or virus has the same lack of control.

  20. All powers are weapons by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

    If you're able to do something better than someone else, there's probably a way to weaponize that.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  21. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by shaitand · · Score: 2

    "A large faction seems to be really trying to pull the party WAY left (US left) and that bothers me, there are actual candidates there promoting socialism."

    Socialism doesn't concern me, that is just economic. What concerns me is the rampant racism, sexism, and hate they are promoting. They are promoting a culture of paranoia and fear.

  22. What is a Hammer? by Zorro · · Score: 1

    You can build a house with it or bash someones brains in with the exact same hammer.

    Does that make it a weapon and not a tool?

    1. Re:What is a Hammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can also use the pistol butt as a hammer but it is still a weapon.

    2. Re:What is a Hammer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can build a house with it or bash someones brains in with the exact same hammer.

      Does that make it a weapon and not a tool?

      If the hammer is being developed by the US military, nobody is going to assume it is being developed for building houses.

      If Russia were doing the same thing, would you take on face value they're doing research for agricultural purposes? 'Cuz that's not exactly their core competencies.

  23. Tip O'Neill was a milktoast by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    who had rings run around him by the Republicans. He was chair when the Republicans began their strategy of "Obstruct anything the Dems want and wreck the country to make them look bad". Tip had no response to that because it was an entirely new kind of politics. One that didn't give a rat's ass about the consequences for the country so long as the party and it's mega-rich donors were taking care of. It's Kleptocracy of the worst sort. Once that started there wasn't a damn thing Tip or the Dems could do.

    And yes, we do have right wing "Blue Dog" establishment Dems like Pelosi and Schumer working with the GOP to sell us all out. Folks like Bernie & Liz are trying to shut them down and out and replace them with pro-worker, pro-American candidates, but so far they've buried their competition in corporate money.

    I'm not making anything up. Come back to me when you've got people in the GOP above the position of Dog Catcher who refuse corporate & PAC money like the Dems do. Until then please, please, wake up and smell the coffee. You got sold out.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Tip O'Neill was a milktoast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bernie & Liz are trying to shut them down and out and replace them with pro-worker, pro-American candidates,

      Bernie's social agenda will have America looking like Venezuela in two decades. There. is. no. money. It's all debt. It's hollow. Do you pay any attention to this nation's economics, or do you just genuflect before clowns like Bernanke? The Wealthy do not have enough money to steal to come even close to paying Bernie's invoice for a year or two, even if precious Bernie threw in his personal millions. But he won't, will he, and you know that. (Something Occasional-Cortez needs to learn as well, once bald-faced lying to the masses stops working.)

      You want pro-America? Show me a third party; it's the only way you're going to get it. And start building things in America again. Maybe Bezos has some ideas. Oh, wait...

  24. Any Label for new capabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They will put any label of convenience on research like this. What they really want is knowledge of mechanism, so that they can use it differently in the future. Once you've figured out the mechanism, it will take much less money to do it a second time with a less ambivalent objective.

  25. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    What concerns me is the rampant racism, sexism, and hate they are promoting.

    I haven't seen any of this...where are they actively promoting any of these things?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  26. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God I wish I had mod points .

  27. plagues killed more than atom bombs by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    Hanta virus still killing people as does anthrax.

    Small pox, malaria killed more people in the Americas than lived in all the rest of the world

    it's not a pointed stick. Disease has killed more people than atom bombs.

    But that's not a good reason to say no medical research

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:plagues killed more than atom bombs by hey! · · Score: 1

      It is a good reason to be careful about research into methods for infecting people.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  28. What happens if they bite a hjuman or animal? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    Insects infecting plants with viruses

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong???

  29. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by shaitand · · Score: 1

    Racism and sexism had reached a point where they were roughly akin to the measles in this country. Through promotion of the idea that these concepts exist, even on a subconscious level the person isn't aware of, they created an impossible to invalidate bogeyman. Anyone who isn't a straight white male is so sensitized to the idea of discrimination that they see it everywhere, they imagine privilege everywhere.

    Women speak in their echo chamber and talk about how a man would get to do this or wouldn't be called out for that. Hell, even those who are straight white men are falsely led to believe they have something in common with other historical people who happened to share a skin tone. We don't agree with racism and or repressing women, we know we don't hold those kind of views but can't be certain about others... all the while initiatives both public and private provide advantage to everyone but us (thereby putting them in the fast lane and us in the slow lane for nothing but the accident of birth) on the presumption we have some magical undefined advantage.

    In science men on average require 2-5x the number of citations to get the same jobs as men now. A scientist pointing this out was suspended and presumably will soon be fired. There is a supreme court candidate who may or may not be confirmed today. The fact that he has voiced net neutrality rules that run counter to the Constitution and amount to granting your carrier the authority to read and alter contracts and communications between you and others, including your attorney for instance, not even discussed. Instead we are supposed to support them on the basis of unproven allegations against a court justice in a country with a justice system which holds innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as its cornerstone. On a daily basis history is being rewritten to portray women and minorities as the key players in historical discoveries simply because the key players had the wrong genitals and skin color. Stories and media from our youth are being rewritten and re-characterized. A group that at the time was entirely focused on the importance of words redefined a cause to promote the interests of women as being the movement for gender equality, begging the question. Illegal immigrants have been flooded across our borders, not to allow them a better life, but because they potentially represent voters. Hell, in New Mexico the DMV has been outsourced so they can easily obtain ID and vote.

    You cannot cure bigotry with bigotry. All you can do is alienate and breed resentment. This hatred and racism that persists and is drummed up for the purpose of gaining political support only creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. So long as people continue to believe the leaders who tell them they are weak and repressed and to blame it on someone else rather than enrich themselves and grow stronger they will be weak and repressed but by the leaders who claim they represent them. Lost entirely is the concept of philosophical charity.

  30. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Define "forward".

  31. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    I honestly don't quite know what the democrat party is trying to promote.

    A lot of stuff, and some of it is sadly simply because the other guy opposes it. But we're largely peacniks, we don't like unilaterally invading other nations. That didn't work out so well. Internationally we're doves and we want everyone to play nice with each other. We like the environment and we're "green". We don't want to exchange our kid's health (and possibly a human extinction event [we... ARE in the middle of a mass extinction event]) for a couple of bucks. We're also massive hypocrites because most of use are still ok with trading with China and exchanging THEIR kids' health for a couple of bucks. We think women are people, gays are people, and even some of the more kookier folk are people. I think some of the party take that WAY too far. To the point where they're attacking freedom of speech, which... man, that USED to be something we were trying to promote. When the jackboots were on hippy's necks. Time change I guess. And we want equality. Some of us also want equity, and I'm not so sure about that, but socialism isn't the boogeyman it used to be.

    We bailed out the banks in 2008. That's socialism. We've been in that position before and tried that alternative. It didn't work. 1929 was one hell of a year. And practically any alternative would be better than our current healthcare system.

    the old days where both sides could actually work together. I remember how Reagan and Tip O'Neil,

    Mighty fine rose-colored specs you've got on there. Politics were vile back then too. You'll always be able to find exceptions. Buuuuuut I have to admit things have gotten worse. This partisanship is tearing our nation apart. Yeah, it just keeps escalating.

    I know I'm a bit biased on the conservative side

    Trust us, we know.

    when Obama won, I didn't see the violence and widespread protests that fall into riots like we do with the left since Trump won.

    Stop watching FoxNews, they're pushing an agenda and you're living in a spin-zone. A bubble of hate that swirls into a hurricane. Let me guess, you're very concerned about antifa?

    Sadly, a lot of other major news organizations have likewise degraded into partisanship. Just really blatant shit. Turns out that when everyone can get their news for free, the journalists get paid by other people who want it said a certain way. It's not like they were ever saints, but now their whole fucking arm is in the cookie-jar.

  32. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

    Well.... I mean... that nutball's code of conduct got into the Linux foundation. I think that whole crowd comes from SanFran and silicon valley. Ehmke with hat Code Covenant. There's just not two ways about it, they're racist and sexist. And yet they're being defended. It's a sad state of affairs.

    But hey, while our fringe might be nuts, your fringe over on the TEA-party wasn't exactly all there in the head either.

  33. Related scifi novel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Gene Mapper" by Taiyo Fujii

  34. Re:Our culture has already regressed a hundred yea by shaitand · · Score: 1

    "The fact that he has voiced net neutrality rules that run counter to the Constitution and amount to granting your carrier the authority to read and alter contracts and communications between you and others, including your attorney for instance, not even discussed. Instead we are supposed to support them on the basis of unproven allegations against a court justice in a country with a justice system which holds innocent until proven guilty in a court of law as its cornerstone."

    Instead of demanding a bunch of lawyers ignore the principles of law and give them yet more reason under whatever joke of an investigation the FBI can do in a week... we could have focused on the real issue. The big issues that are actually likely to come before the courts.

  35. population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Population cannot grow forever. At some point we run out of places to grow food, or firewood, or potable water, or places to bury the dead, or fuel to launch the hairdressers, account executives and telephone sanitizors into out space. "Improving" plants, energy, water purification buys time. During this time the population increases further. Eventually population has to level off or decrease.
    A crashing decrease of world population will probably not occur; pockets of collapse will occur first.