Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!sunybcs!boulder!pell
From: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.research
Subject: Dugway Biowarfare Facility--a clarification
Message-ID: <2476@sigi.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Tue, 6-Oct-87 18:51:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: sigi.2476
Posted: Tue Oct  6 18:51:55 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Oct-87 22:18:38 EDT
Sender: news@sigi.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 55
Xref: mnetor sci.bio:695 sci.research:248

I wish to clarify a possition of mine that was apparently mis-understood
in my last posting.  Neither the Committee for Responsible Genetics or myself
have any affiliation with Jeremy Rifkin or the Council on Economic Trends.
My personal opinion of Jeremy is that he is an extremist and potentially
dangerous to my carreer.  That opinion not-withstanding, he must be credited
when citing the law suit that got the injunction against the biowarfare
facility at Dugway.
One of the reasons I am involved in the fight against Dugway is that it
troubles me that objection to the use of biotechnology in warfare did
not come strongly enough from the mainstream research community.
It behooves those of us who depend on modern biotechnology in our research
to make sure we are perceived as a responsible community capable of
self-regulation.  At a recent international meeting of prokariotic molecular
geneticists, the Dugway facility was discussed.  One of the points I stressed
is that we must maitain control of our own research--I do not wish to lose
control to the military OR to fanatics such as Rifkin.
If we allow Rifkin to build his credibility by winning battles such as
this while we are silent, we give him ammunition to then direct against us.

Allowing the military to use modern biotechnology for top-secret warfare
research is dangerous.  Given their history of bungling, what they do by
accident is more worrysome than that which they do intentionally (consider
the "anthrax tower"--a building at fort Dietrick that cannot ever be used
because of an accident with anthrax--and the death of some six thousand
livestock around Dugway due to an accidental release of nerve gas.  A complete
list is too long to include here).

Giving the military control over research funds in biotechnology is potentially
dangerous.  Consider the double-bind in which our colleagues in physics now
find themselves.

The assertion I make is that research in molecular biology should be in the
hands of private-sector and civilian agencies, where it is openly discussed,
subject to peer review and criticism.
If we do not object to the military gaining control, we will lose one of
two ways:  Either the military will get control; or fanatics such as Jeremy
will succeed in their fight against the military use of biotechnology and,
armed with public support and greater credibility, attempt to stifle
research in accademia.

I urge you to read about the proposal and decide for yourself if you wish to
allow the military to use biotechnology in warfare-related work.  And yes, we
can stop it if we choose to do so.
A few references:
        "Science" volume 226 pp1176-1178 (1984)
        "Science" volume 228 pp 827-828  (1985)
        "Genewatch" May-August 1985
More recent references are fewer and farther between.  This is part of the
problem.  But this will give most of the picture.
Anyone interested in more information can contact me or the Committee for
responsible Genetics.  We can get copies of the DOD's report when it is
published.

Thanks,
-tony