Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.research Subject: Re: Dugway Biowarfare Facility--a clarification Message-ID: <6535@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: Wed, 7-Oct-87 23:13:49 EDT Article-I.D.: brl-smok.6535 Posted: Wed Oct 7 23:13:49 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 10-Oct-87 13:06:38 EDT References: <2476@sigi.Colorado.EDU> Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) ) Distribution: na Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 46 Xref: mnetor sci.bio:703 sci.research:251 In article <2476@sigi.Colorado.EDU> pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier) writes: >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. That's certainly laudable, and you should do that in any case. >Allowing the military to use modern biotechnology for top-secret warfare >research is dangerous. Omitting "top-secret" (since security classifications are based solely on probably damage to the national interests if information is disclosed), your contention seems to be that there are certain areas that the military should be prohibited from considering. Unfortunately, this is very naive. Like it or not, nuclear, chemical, and biological issues are extremely important for the battlefield of today. As a minimum, a responsible military organization MUST determine viable defenses for such agents, which WILL BE (and to a limited degree HAVE BEEN) used in actual battles. Even to investigate defensive measures, some research has to be done to determine possible offensive threats. That is NOT to say that such research should lead to the stockpiling of large quantities of such offensive munitions, as has been stupidly done in the past. >Given their history of bungling... The military researchers I know of have no more tendency to "bungle" than civilians. True, politicians (both within the military and outside it) can make some incredibly stupid decisions that eventually cause major problems; however, civilian research has similar bureaucracies, especially when it is dependent on Federal funding. >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. I doubt that very much, based on past experience. You can't even keep the administration from supplying military aid to the Contras when Congress has specifically prohibited it! I think your best bet would be to agitate for a civilian review board as an overseer of military bio research, rather than trying to "outlaw" such research. P.S. Although I work (as a civilian) for a military research lab, the above opinions are mine alone and should not be assumed to have any relation to official government policy.