Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!cit-vax!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!decvax!linus!philabs!aecom!diaz
From: diaz@aecom.YU.EDU (Dizzy Dan Diaz)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.research
Subject: Re: Dugway Biowarfare Facility--a clarification
Message-ID: <1365@aecom.YU.EDU>
Date: Sat, 10-Oct-87 13:59:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: aecom.1365
Posted: Sat Oct 10 13:59:17 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Oct-87 21:48:47 EDT
References: <2476@sigi.Colorado.EDU> <6535@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Distribution: na
Organization: Graduate School of Hard Knocks
Lines: 40
Summary: The Danger of "Just Doing Research"
Xref: mnetor sci.bio:720 sci.research:257

In article <6535@brl-smoke.ARPA>, gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
> 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.

Despite the existence of treaties forbidding the development and use of
biological weapons in combat, the facist forces in the Reagan regime
insist on their development for "purely defensive" reasons.  As Doug
Gwyn has aptly stated in his posting, the stockpiling of munitions as a
result of such research should not be permitted.  The problem with the
way military research has usually worked is that what begins as
defensive research usually turns offensive.  Facist Reagan's "Star Wars"
is a prime example of a "defensive" system with the potential to become
offensive at the flip of a switch.  This is why the Soviets are fearful
of its development, and why we should fight it as well.

Although I think him a bit extreme, I consider Jeremy Rifkin a "voice in
the wilderness" appropriately asking us to look at where we're headed
and decide if that's where we really want to go.  Molecular biology is
no exception.

If we are serious about our opposition to the development of biological
weapons, then the research community might consider taking steps to
hinder this work in the spirit of opposition to South Africa's
repressive Apartheid system.  It may be that we will want to reconsider
consulting with or giving advice to those engaged in such research.  As
Tony has pointed out, many of our friends in the physics and computer
science communities have sold out to DOD and are now engaged in the
development of new weapons for world annihilation.  The biological
community may well be next.

-- 
   ....*    dn/dx = Dan Diaz (diaz@aecom.yu.edu) 212 430 9476
  ~..|.>    Department of Wasting Taxpayers' Money on Useless Research 
  *\../     Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Bar & Grill