Re:Interesting and SCARY
on
The DNA Bomb
·
· Score: 2
Wouldn't it be nice if the easy answer was "quit pissing people off?" Too bad it doesn't work that way.
Some citations:
Rogers, Paul, Simon Whitby, and Malcolm Dando. Biological Warfare Against Crops. Scientific American, June 1999, pgs 70-75.
Just found these two webpages, might help: The second one might be more what you're looking for.
http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsp/
Interesting article about braindrain from Russia:
Tucker, Jonathan B. Bioweapons from Russia: Stemming the Flow. Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 1999. pp34-38.
Interesting article about Iraq, commentary:
Seelos, Christian. Lessons from Iraq on Bioweapons. Nature, 398:187-188. March 18, 1999.
The AMA and the CDC have had a passing (?) interest in this topic. I ran into a person who claimed he'd worked on Biol. War projects in the CIA but I can't vouch for his credentials.
To answer the second question, I think jargon is what protects us now. How many people can really understand "Anthrax Lethal Factor Cleaves the N-Terminus of MAPKKs and Induces Tyrosine/Threonine Phosphorylation of MAPKs in Cultured Macrophages" without devoting too much time to it? That's just the *title* of a paper published in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications in 1998. Admittedly, you don't really need to know *how* anthrax works to use it. At the same time, you can use any introductory microbiology textbook to learn the basics of microbiological technique but my introductory textbooks certainly haven't gone out of their way to tell me how to use my powers for evil. It's possible there's something ala the anarchist's cookbook running around, but I don't know. In short, it would take a long dedication of time to figure out how to do this, the way things currently stand. On the other hand, high school students can have a lot of time.
Third question: disclaimer: I'm only a graduate student, but I identify as a scientist. I don't think we can ask scientists to anticipate all the future ramifications of their work. Wasn't Einstein pretty upset about his work being used as a weapon? Where do we draw the line? I'm sure Pasteur wasn't thinking "biological weapons!" when he isolated the causative agent of anthrax over a hundred years ago. Who can predict how some things can be used as a weapon? It's kind of like suing someone for making a hammer without a label reading "Warning! May cause bruises and trauma if beat on the head!". It would be nice if some international organization would take responsibility for this, but the 1972 BWTC that was supposed to halt biol. weapon research was signed and immediately violated by just about everyone, as near as I can tell - including the US. Also, please don't forget that currently, it's almost impossible to concoct diabolic biologic agents of evil de novo. You need a source. Think about smallpox - we quit vaccinating people for that before I was born. If someone got their hands on smallpox, they could wipe out everyone in their mid-20s or younger. IN THEORY there are only two vials of smallpox in the entire world, one in the CDC and one somewhere in russia. Good luck trying to get your hands on them.
Oh, and one more thought - this has been discussed on/. elsewhere, but currently to be successful in academics, you are almost required to publish constantly. Asking people not to publish their information would be the same as saying "don't do this research" and there are good reasons to do the research or it wouldn't get funded. Also, just becuase we're not doing the research doesn't mean Big Enemey Of The Day isn't doing research either (that's the logic we violated the BWTC under!)
Re:Interesting and SCARY
on
The DNA Bomb
·
· Score: 1
Who's watching? You mean nonconspiracy stuff, right? AFAIK, there isn't anyone. There are specific task forces set up to work with the Iraqis, and there used to be and may still exist a project to fund Russian scientists to work with American scientists rather than defect to the middle east (Hey, how'd this gigantic bowl for making anthrax wind up out here in the Iraqi desert?) Beyond that, I don't know.
I don't have any websites about this, all my references are paper journals. New Scientist had a lot of articles on these topics. If you're really serious about going and looking up the articles, I'll find my references and type them in.
Re:Wars, Famines and Pestilences
on
The DNA Bomb
·
· Score: 2
Some techniques are already very cheap. If you merely want your own strain of anthrax, I think it could be done with some potatoes, a stove, a pot, some water, a flame, a needle, and a good microbiology textbook. Oh, and a source of anthrax. At the same time, I could isolate my own weak antibiotics using the same tools, but instead of a dead cow, I could use dirt for the source.
I think depending on what type of genetics you're trying to do, cost would not be so prohibitive. There are ways around things. TAQ polymerase is pretty important for PCR (a quick way to amplify particular genes) but TAQ polymerase is mostly expensive becuase someone patented it. I don't have to buy an expensive gel electrophoresis machine if i know basic electronics.
As for crop targeting - When we first started poking around in Iraq's biological weapons program in the early 90's, we found they'd been doing research on wheat smut, a fungus to target wheat in Iran. The Germans in WWII reportedly had a beetle ready to deploy to hit British potato crops, but surrendered before the first spring they would have used it. Russia had an extensive crop targeting program before they collapsed. Some other poster already mentioned Columbia's pissiness at us and the same fungus mentioned in that post is the same fungus people want to (possibly have obtained permission to?) test in Montana on hemp... which borders parts of Canada which grow nonTHC hemp... Poppies have been targetted, as well...the only major difference is that as near as I can tell (and I have done much research on this, for school), artificial genetic manipulation has not been done. So far people seem to be relying on the timehonored methods of crossbreeding to develop better strains.
Finally, yes, things can backfire if you don't target well. I don't know a lot about Iraq, but I get the impression that the wheat smut was selected becuase Iran has lots of wheat and Iraq doesn't. This gets back to the lifestyle targetting mentioned before. Pick something your neighbor has but you don't. Pick a weapon that doens't tend to jump species. Modify the fsck out of 'em. Right now, we have bacteria that won't survive out of the lab becuase they need something, a nutrient perhaps, that isn't easily found in nature. It's the same kind of thinking.
Finally, I think the only reason biological warfare isn't *more* common is becuase most people don't realize how easy biology is.
Please forgive my longwindedness, I just gave a talk on this topic less than a week ago.
We bought six identical Dell Inspiron 5000e's for everyone in our program at school. Simply put, they suck rocks. If anyone's thinking of buying one, don't. They're too heavy and slow for the price. A lot of the problems we've had might be fixed by changing the batteries, but I think inherently they're shoddy and cheaply made. There are many negative reviews at CNet and the only thing we haven't had happen in at least one of our six computers is for pixels to go out.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't it be nice if the easy answer was "quit pissing people off?" Too bad it doesn't work that way.
/. elsewhere, but currently to be successful in academics, you are almost required to publish constantly. Asking people not to publish their information would be the same as saying "don't do this research" and there are good reasons to do the research or it wouldn't get funded. Also, just becuase we're not doing the research doesn't mean Big Enemey Of The Day isn't doing research either (that's the logic we violated the BWTC under!)
Some citations:
Rogers, Paul, Simon Whitby, and Malcolm Dando. Biological Warfare Against Crops. Scientific American, June 1999, pgs 70-75.
Just found these two webpages, might help: The second one might be more what you're looking for.
http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsp/
Kleinter, Kurt. Operation Eradicate. New Scientist, Sept 11, 1999. pp 20-21.
Interesting article about braindrain from Russia:
Tucker, Jonathan B. Bioweapons from Russia: Stemming the Flow. Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 1999. pp34-38.
Interesting article about Iraq, commentary:
Seelos, Christian. Lessons from Iraq on Bioweapons. Nature, 398:187-188. March 18, 1999.
The AMA and the CDC have had a passing (?) interest in this topic. I ran into a person who claimed he'd worked on Biol. War projects in the CIA but I can't vouch for his credentials.
To answer the second question, I think jargon is what protects us now. How many people can really understand "Anthrax Lethal Factor Cleaves the N-Terminus of MAPKKs and Induces Tyrosine/Threonine Phosphorylation of MAPKs in Cultured Macrophages" without devoting too much time to it? That's just the *title* of a paper published in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications in 1998. Admittedly, you don't really need to know *how* anthrax works to use it. At the same time, you can use any introductory microbiology textbook to learn the basics of microbiological technique but my introductory textbooks certainly haven't gone out of their way to tell me how to use my powers for evil. It's possible there's something ala the anarchist's cookbook running around, but I don't know. In short, it would take a long dedication of time to figure out how to do this, the way things currently stand. On the other hand, high school students can have a lot of time.
Third question: disclaimer: I'm only a graduate student, but I identify as a scientist. I don't think we can ask scientists to anticipate all the future ramifications of their work. Wasn't Einstein pretty upset about his work being used as a weapon? Where do we draw the line? I'm sure Pasteur wasn't thinking "biological weapons!" when he isolated the causative agent of anthrax over a hundred years ago. Who can predict how some things can be used as a weapon? It's kind of like suing someone for making a hammer without a label reading "Warning! May cause bruises and trauma if beat on the head!". It would be nice if some international organization would take responsibility for this, but the 1972 BWTC that was supposed to halt biol. weapon research was signed and immediately violated by just about everyone, as near as I can tell - including the US. Also, please don't forget that currently, it's almost impossible to concoct diabolic biologic agents of evil de novo. You need a source. Think about smallpox - we quit vaccinating people for that before I was born. If someone got their hands on smallpox, they could wipe out everyone in their mid-20s or younger. IN THEORY there are only two vials of smallpox in the entire world, one in the CDC and one somewhere in russia. Good luck trying to get your hands on them.
Oh, and one more thought - this has been discussed on
Who's watching? You mean nonconspiracy stuff, right? AFAIK, there isn't anyone. There are specific task forces set up to work with the Iraqis, and there used to be and may still exist a project to fund Russian scientists to work with American scientists rather than defect to the middle east (Hey, how'd this gigantic bowl for making anthrax wind up out here in the Iraqi desert?) Beyond that, I don't know.
I don't have any websites about this, all my references are paper journals. New Scientist had a lot of articles on these topics. If you're really serious about going and looking up the articles, I'll find my references and type them in.
Some techniques are already very cheap. If you merely want your own strain of anthrax, I think it could be done with some potatoes, a stove, a pot, some water, a flame, a needle, and a good microbiology textbook. Oh, and a source of anthrax. At the same time, I could isolate my own weak antibiotics using the same tools, but instead of a dead cow, I could use dirt for the source.
... which borders parts of Canada which grow nonTHC hemp... Poppies have been targetted, as well...the only major difference is that as near as I can tell (and I have done much research on this, for school), artificial genetic manipulation has not been done. So far people seem to be relying on the timehonored methods of crossbreeding to develop better strains.
I think depending on what type of genetics you're trying to do, cost would not be so prohibitive. There are ways around things. TAQ polymerase is pretty important for PCR (a quick way to amplify particular genes) but TAQ polymerase is mostly expensive becuase someone patented it. I don't have to buy an expensive gel electrophoresis machine if i know basic electronics.
As for crop targeting - When we first started poking around in Iraq's biological weapons program in the early 90's, we found they'd been doing research on wheat smut, a fungus to target wheat in Iran. The Germans in WWII reportedly had a beetle ready to deploy to hit British potato crops, but surrendered before the first spring they would have used it. Russia had an extensive crop targeting program before they collapsed. Some other poster already mentioned Columbia's pissiness at us and the same fungus mentioned in that post is the same fungus people want to (possibly have obtained permission to?) test in Montana on hemp
Finally, yes, things can backfire if you don't target well. I don't know a lot about Iraq, but I get the impression that the wheat smut was selected becuase Iran has lots of wheat and Iraq doesn't. This gets back to the lifestyle targetting mentioned before. Pick something your neighbor has but you don't. Pick a weapon that doens't tend to jump species. Modify the fsck out of 'em. Right now, we have bacteria that won't survive out of the lab becuase they need something, a nutrient perhaps, that isn't easily found in nature. It's the same kind of thinking.
Finally, I think the only reason biological warfare isn't *more* common is becuase most people don't realize how easy biology is.
Please forgive my longwindedness, I just gave a talk on this topic less than a week ago.
We bought six identical Dell Inspiron 5000e's for everyone in our program at school. Simply put, they suck rocks. If anyone's thinking of buying one, don't. They're too heavy and slow for the price. A lot of the problems we've had might be fixed by changing the batteries, but I think inherently they're shoddy and cheaply made. There are many negative reviews at CNet and the only thing we haven't had happen in at least one of our six computers is for pixels to go out.