pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (01/01/70)
All right, you backed me into it. Mr. Gywn claims he never said anything about immunology or the possibility of raising defensive vaccines for me to correct. I submit the following quotations: > re. vaccines, it would seem to me (admittedly not an immunologist) that > even if we didn't know the specific nature of future biological threats, > if we were reasonably certain about the likely classes of future threats > then having knowledge that could lead to quick development of vaccines > could well be worthwhile. > > last I heard via unclassified > channels there were then only a small number of probable CBW threats of > sufficient significance to require development of specific countermeasures. > This means that it is not a "hopeless" problem, and therefore it is quite > proper for people to be working on it. I apparently missinterpreted the the "re. vaccines" to mean that Mr. Gwyn was talking about vaccines. I wish to clear up a few points which I thought were made in the above quotes. Bear in mind that Mr. Gwyn claims to have no knowledge of having made these points, so the following should in no way be construed as attacking his possition. There are NOT only a small number of possible threats. It may well be true that there are only a few toxic gene-products that are popular with the military, but you can put the genes for these ANY WHERE YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE. I make my living doing gene manipulation of a less dangerous sort (and in teaching others how to do it). If the Soviets have as little reguard for the treaty we both signed as the US military does, they could easily put their favorite lethal gene into any virus that infects humans. It is also patently false that knowing even the "class" of the agent that would be used to deliver the toxic gene-product would be of any use. Take for example, lentiviruses such as AIDS. Even having the EXACT DNA sequence of many isolates of the virus is USELESS in developing antibodies to neutralize a new isolate. In no case is a vaccine research useful in defense. I suspect the motives of the military are not as pure as they claim. If that makes me a radical and un-American, so be it. Mr. Gwyn takes exception to my claim that the intelegence agencies would not be able to determine years in advance precisely on what agents the Soviets are working. He points out, correctly, that I have no direct experience in covert operations. However, I do read the papers (more people spreading dangerous ideas). Do you, Mr. Gwyn, really expect us to believe that the same community that gave us the Iran/Contra scandel is capable of knowing years in advance the lethal organisms the Soviets are developing? Get real. I also said "It seems to me that one method to destroy life as we know it is quite sufficient." Mr Gwyn responds: > We had that back in the days of stones and spears. Mr Gwyn, for the benefit of those of us less knowledgable in the area of weapons systems, please explain how "stones and spears" can bring an end to life as we know it. I also mentioned alot of cases where I thought military research was conducted poorly or improperly. Perhaps directly with Mr Gwyn, I will discuss this further; but I see no need to subject other readers to it. I have one more point. Mr Gwyn has called my character into question. He made allusions with no support that I am mis-representing the facts. I point out that I gave references in one of my postings. Unlike Mr. Gwyn, I do not believe that ideas are ever dangerous. It is limitting access to ideas and preventing discussion of all sides that is dangerous. I want all those with whom I dicuss this to have access to the information. That is why I posted the references and urged those interested to read them and decide for themselves. Why have you not read them, Mr. Gwyn? Most of the references I gave were in the official journal of the "American Association for the Advancement of Science." The journal is called "Science" and it and its parent organization are extremely reputably. I have not, as you claim, painted the picture of "complete bunglers trying to develop actual vaccines to unknown viruses." The picture I paint is one of the military trying to convince the gullible that "defensive" research is viable and must be carried out in secret. I believe that their motives are not as pure as they say. I have said that in every posting on this topic. You see, I know something of the type of research the military is trying to fund in the private sector. They offer lots of money to people working on things like Staph. aureus enterro-toxins (for defense?). (details and references available on request) My possition is unchanged. What the military proposes they will do is absurd from a scientific point of view. That they want to do it in secret worries me. A president of the US signed an agreement that we would not do what the military wants to do. I wish to take steps to make sure the US does not reneg on that agreement. -tony Molecular etc. Biology Boulder, Co. 80303-0347
pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) (10/12/87)
Doug Gwyn writes: > >[lots of suff responding to a posting of mine on the proposed >biowarfare research facility at the Dugway proving grounds.] Information he gave regarding immunology and the possibility of developing defensive vaccines was false, and I originally wanted to correct it. Then, in response to my challenge to produce an example of misuse of research in academia that was comparable to that of the army dumping bacteria from an airplane on the Washington DC area, he gave us this gem: >They have spread ideas across the nation that are even more >harmful, however; does that count? Logical argument is wasted on people who think ideas are dangerous. I do not care to waste my time. -tony