Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!rutgers!sunybcs!boulder!pell
From: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Newsgroups: sci.research,sci.bio
Subject: Re: Dugway Biowarfare Facility
Message-ID: <2537@sigi.Colorado.EDU>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: sigi.2537
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Tue, 13-Oct-87 06:27:32 EDT
References: <2476@sigi.Colorado.EDU> <6535@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2518@sigi.Colorado.EDU> <6557@brl-smoke.ARPA> <2532@sigi.Colorado.EDU> <6559@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Sender: news@sigi.Colorado.EDU
Reply-To: pell@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Anthony Pelletier)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 100
Xref: mnetor sci.research:265 sci.bio:726

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