|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S Response: Should Science Be More Regulated? Government officials are making and debating proposals to limit scientific research—especially in biological sciences—in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the U.S. anthrax incidents, the New York Times reported today. “The world as a whole has not fully absorbed how powerful biotechnology is getting,” said John Steinbruner, director of the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies. “This is a real watershed.” Soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Biotechnology Industry Organization surveyed its members to determine what technology they had that could be used to produce biological weapons. In addition, the BIO issued an alert to be aware of any unusual orders. Out of 400 companies, about 30 said they had received some suspicious inquiries, said BIO President Carl Feldbaum. Already the federal government has proposed some regulatory measures. President George W. Bush has called for an international code of ethical conduct for biological scientists, according to the Times, and the recent anti-terrorism law makes it easier to prosecute people possessing biological warfare agents with the intent to use them as weapons. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) have proposed legislation that would require all laboratories that handle weapon-usable germs to register with the government. Some scientists, however, are concerned that that the recent proposals would do more to deter legitimate research than terrorism. “Before we enact legislation requiring people to padlock their strain collections and classify their DNA sequences we should ask the question about who we are trying to keep the information from,” said Stanford University biophysics professor Steve Block. “What we’ll probably wind up restricting is legitimate science without in any serious way restricting the ability to use this as a bioweapon.” The new rules are already causing some laboratories to stop working with pathogens that could be used as a biological weapons, said Ronald Atlas, president-elect of the American Society for Microbiology. “Some researchers now are afraid to be anywhere near an anthrax culture,” Atlas said. Regulation or Censorship? Scientists are also concerned that some experiments might not be conducted or the results published, according to the Times. “That’s a whole new concept we’ve not faced before,” Atlas said. “Basic information, from publishing of genomes to doing experiments, has not been subject to banning before.” For example, scientists are worried by the fact that complete genome sequences for many pathogens are available to the public, the Times reported. While terrorists could use the sequences to improve biological weapons, researchers could also use the sequences to develop treatments or cures. “Some people argue that publishing each genome is like publishing the blueprint to the atomic bomb,” said Celera Genomics President Craig Venter. “But it’s also the blueprint for a deterrent and the blueprint for a cure.” Venter has been involved in this debate before, according to the Times. He worked on a project to make artificial microbes that was eventually halted. “We were going to make a synthetic, harmless microorganism to study biology and evolution,” Venter said. “It became clear to me that if I developed those techniques that would be publishing the blueprint to make a synthetic pathogen.” Many scientists are opposed to censoring research, the Times reported. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Editor-in-Chief Nicholas Cozzarelli said that “it would have to be an extraordinary case” before he would refuse to publish an article on the grounds that the information could be used by terrorists. Biological scientists do agree, however, that more awareness is needed about what could be done with their work. “The biomedical community must play its proper part in the generation of a true web of deterrence,” the Institute of Genomic Research Director Claire Fraser and Malcolm Dando, of the University of Bradford in Britain, wrote in Natural Genetics. “To do anything less is to accept that the events of [Sept. 11] could be repeated on an even larger scale through the misuse of the science and technology we generate for peaceful purposes” (Andrew Pollack, New York Times, Nov. 27).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
