“How and why is it that I do not describe my method for remaining underwater and how long I can remain there without coming up for air? I do not wish to divulge or publish this because of the evil nature of men, who might use it for murder on the sea-bed.” – Leonardo Da Vinci [1].
The process of scientific publication, through which new discoveries are presented to the scientific community and public, is a vital element of the search for knowledge. The methodical approach latent within scientific inquiry across disciplines is the key to innovation. Advances in the scientific community have clear benefits for the general public, particularly in areas of biological and medical research. The cumulative benefits of the free-flow of information have allowed for the development of an array of life-saving drugs, vaccines, antibiotics, insulin and many other hormones. Hence, open communication of research work is not merely a luxury – but a necessary condition – for scientific productivity and knowledge dispersion. However, in recent years, the United States Federal Government has censored or tried to censor some publications of “dual-use research,” research yielding new technologies or information with the potential for both benevolent and malevolent applications [2], due to national security concerns.
In the early days of atomic research, nuclear physicists realized that discoveries like nuclear fission and chain reaction could provide new sources of energy; but they also saw that they could be used for nefarious purposes — destroying humanity. In recent years, life scientists have found themselves in similar situations. While new developments in the fields of genetics and biotechnology could revolutionize the medical...
... middle of paper ...
...owledge, to share it with everyone that is interested" and that secrecy “strikes at the very root of what science is, and what science is for” [14]. In this sense, the suppressive public policy interventions inherently contradict scientists’ objectives, namely the dispersal of productive knowledge. Despite decades of scientific publication, there is no evidence that terrorists or other groups have attempted to use publically available dual-use research to deploy biological weapons. At the same time, there is very real evidence that concerns about the dangers of dual-use research are slowing the progress of the life sciences. Proponents of restrictions on dual-use research have failed to show how their measures would actually improve security. Risk must be balanced against likelihood, and in the absence of a credible threat, research censorship should be reduced.
This summer we had an opportunity to dive into the world of bioweapons, through Richard Preston’s novel The Demon in the Freezer. His book explored the colorful world of smallpox and its use as a biological weapon. Earlier this week we were graced with this authors present for an ACES event. He discussed some of the found topics in his book such as animal testing, what small pox is, and even its eradication. One of the great things we had the chance of vocalizing were our many opinions on the gloom associated with this intriguing disease.
Guillemin, J. (2005). Biological weapons: From the invention of state-sponsored programs to contemporary bioterrorism Columbia University Press.
Scientific research is constantly being battled in politics. The point of communication in science is to try and get across a proven theory to the public. Under the scrutiny of political agendas, these efforts face many hurdles. Informing the public of climate changes has had a positive impact on the acceptance of science. There are several techniques the scientific community communicates their findings to the public.
In the summer of 1995, the periodical Wilson Quarterly published "Enemies of Promise," an essay by J. Michael Bishop, a Nobel Prize-winning professor of microbiology from the University of California, San Francisco. The essay addressed the renewed criticism the scientific community has received in recent years by an ignorant and unduly critical public. The overall effect this single work has had on the world may be nominal, but the points Professor Bishop raises are significant, and provide ammunition against the ignorants who maintain this "intellectual war," centuries after it was sparked.
It is clear throughout the “Double Helix” that there are a set of well-defined norms that underlie the actions of the researchers in the labs discussed by Watson. These norms are consistent throughout Watson’s tale and shape much of the narrative, they include: competitiveness between labs, a vast network of interdisciplinary shared information that Merton would refer to as communism, and a rigid hierarchy that determines to some extent whose work is deemed credible. These norms affected each of the players in Watson’s book to different degrees, and both helped and hindered the advancement of discovery.
The age of genetic technology has arrived. Thanks to genetic technological advancements, medical practitioners, with the help of genetic profiling, will be able to better diagnose patients and design individual tailored treatments; doctors will be able to discern which medications and treatments will be most beneficial and produce the fewest adverse side effects. Rationally designed vaccines have been created to provide optimal protection against infections. Food scientists have hopes of genetically altering crops to increase food production, and therefore mitigate global hunger. Law enforcement officers find that their job is made easier through the advancement of forensics; forensics is yet another contribution of genetic technology. Doctors have the ability to identify “high-risk” babies before they are born, which enables them to be better prepared in the delivery room. Additionally, oncologists are able to improve survival rates of cancer patients by administering genetically engineered changes in malignant tumors; these changes result in an increased immune response by the individual. With more than fifty years of research, and billions of dollars, scientists have uncovered methods to improve and prolong human life and the possibilities offered by gene therapy and genetic technology are increasing daily.
Publication of this can help us to develop better cures for the worst viruses. In addition, people will know how deadly it is, and if they get the virus, they will know what it is. On the other hand, Michael Specter gave an example of Clinton’s speech about bioterrorism. Hilarity Clinton says, “Evidence in Afghanistan. Al Queda in the Arabian Peninsula made a call to arms for – and I quote – ‘brothers with degrees in microbiology or chemistry to develop a weapon of mass destruction”.
Donahue believes that censoring science is putting the United States at the same risk as not censoring. The author states “the effort to suppress scientific information reflects a dangerously outdated attitude.” Donahue supports this claim by explaining several cases in science where sharing information on microbiological studies have helped science move forward. The author mentions an article that was published describing how susceptible the United States milk supply is to the botulinum toxin. This article was suspended by the National Academy of Science because they believed it to be a “road map for terrorists” (p. 1). The author believes however, that instead of censoring such an article this information should be shared, this way other scientists will be able to discover ways to defend against terrorist attacks.
The United States has long been a leader in scientific research, but it will take industry, academia, and government working together for our country to stay there. Since the implementation of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which gave universities greater control over intellectual property, research universities have teamed up with partners during early-stage development to further their resources. The new task of universities was not to conduct research with the intent to make money, but to present their findings to the public domain for the sake of knowledge and the public good. In 2004, David Sinclair and Christopher Westphal, two innovative scientists following their intuition, founded Sirtris Pharmaceuticals. The founding idea arose from Sinclair’s
Science and technology are rapidly advancing everyday; in some ways for the better, and in some, for worse. One extremely controversial advance is genetic engineering. As this technology has high potential to do great things, I believe the power genetic engineering is growing out of control. Although society wants to see this concept used to fight disease and illness, enhance people 's lives, and make agriculture more sustainable, there needs to be a point where a line is drawn.
Since the beginning of organized government there has always been a clash between science and politics. Whether it is as complicated as a new drug's detainment of federal approval or whether it is as commonplace as the social acceptance of a new medical procedure, politics has performed an integral part in the formation of science; this integrated unit is what greatly affects most of the society at large. Thus, it is no surprise the scientific discussion of genetic engineering is peppered with political rhetoric.
Although humans have altered the genomes of species for thousands of years through artificial selection and other non-scientific means, the field of genetic engineering as we now know it did not begin until 1944 when DNA was first identified as the carrier of genetic information by Oswald Avery Colin McLeod and Maclyn McCarty (Stem Cell Research). In the following decades two more important discoveries occurred, first the 1953 discovery of the structure of DNA, by Watson and Crick, and next the 1973 discovery by Cohen and Boyer of a recombinant DNA technique which allowed the successful transfer of DNA into another organism. A year later Rudolf Jaenisch created the world’s first transgenic animal by introducing foreign DNA into a mouse embryo, an experiment that would set the stage for modern genetic engineering (Stem Cell Research). The commercialization of genetic engineering began largely in 1976 wh...
Synthetic biology, also known as synbio, is a new form of research that began in the year 2000. The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group) says that synthetic biology is bringing together “engineering and the life sciences in order to design and construct new biological parts, devices and systems that do not currently exist in the natural world’ (Synthetic Biology). Synthetic biology is aiming to create safer medicines, clean energy, and help the environment through synthetically engineered medicines, biofuels, and food. Because synthetic biology has only existed for fourteen years, there is controversy involving its engineering ethics. In this literature review, I am going to summarize and correlate the International Association for Synthetic Biology (IASB) Code of Conduct for Gene Synthesis, the impact of synthetic biology on people and the environment, and the philosophical debates.
I was the first to put my gear on, then I helped Uncle Bob put his gear on. Each of us had two full tanks of 3000 psi each, which was plenty for a dive, each of us brought eight-millimeter wetsuits that was perfect for the cold-water temperature. After final gear checking, Uncle Bob jumped in the water and gave a surface okay, I later jumped in. The water was cold for the first 2 minutes, then the wetsuit started to work and I was warm. We descended slowly, equalizing the pressure in our ears, because Uncle Bob was more experience he decided faster than I did. We reach the main mast at 80ft below sea level, before the dive Uncle Bob informed me that there will be shark, but I didn’t think there would be this many shark. Uncle Bob led the way down to the top deck of the ship, then we checked our air and depth. I had used 500psi out of 6000psi of my air and Uncle Bob used 1000psi of his 6000psi. Uncle Bob led his way around the ship, as I followed I noticed that the sharks began to take interest in us. As Uncle Bob and I went around the ship, he went through a hole on the bottom, as I followed him in I noticed that the ship was still mostly intact. We
...cy on biological warfare. During his visit to Fort Detrick, he announced that the United States would terminate all research on biological weapons. By the year 1972 the United States had completely destroyed all biological weapon stockpile. In return of this act the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was held, As a result of 118 countries signed a agreeing not to develop, produce, or stockpile any form of biological weapon(Mayer p4). Unfortunately despite many laws passed over time, few countries have abided by them. Evidence of this came in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s there were reports that the Soviet Union was using biological weapons in Laos, Kampuchea, and Afghanistan (Mayer p 4).