Sciencemadness Discussion Board

The Responsibility of Scientists as fellow Human Beings

IrC - 19-12-2011 at 17:30

At what point should anyone endeavoring to make new discoveries in science just say no? What responsibility should be implied upon any form of scientific research?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/alarm-as-dutch-lab...

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/uw-bird-flu-research-...

Already stores of seed are saved in arctic locations in the event of genetic engineering causing global crop and other plant life destruction. When is enough enough? Is there no point at which scientists should be considered criminals committing crimes against humanity?

I will go ahead and post the text since I hate those threads based upon vanishing links.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm as Dutch lab creates highly contagious killer flu

Fear of terrorism as university prepares to publish key details

A deadly strain of bird flu with the potential to infect and kill millions of people has been created in a laboratory by European scientists – who now want to publish full details of how they did it.

The discovery has prompted fears within the US Government that the knowledge will fall into the hands of terrorists wanting to use it as a bio-weapon of mass destruction.

Some scientists are questioning whether the research should ever have been undertaken in a university laboratory, instead of at a military facility.

The US Government is now taking advice on whether the information is too dangerous to be published.

To see the graphic: The last outbreak - A deadly virus even before the latest twist

"The fear is that if you create something this deadly and it goes into a global pandemic, the mortality and cost to the world could be massive," a senior scientific adviser to the US Government told The Independent, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The worst-case scenario here is worse than anything you can imagine."

For the first time the researchers have been able to mutate the H5N1 strain of avian influenza so that it can be transmitted easily through the air in coughs and sneezes. Until now, it was thought that H5N1 bird flu could only be transmitted between humans via very close physical contact.

Dutch scientists carried out the controversial research to discover how easy it was to genetically mutate H5N1 into a highly infectious "airborne" strain of human flu. They believe that the knowledge gained will be vital for the development of new vaccines and drugs.

But critics say the scientists have endangered the world by creating a highly dangerous form of flu which could escape from the laboratory – as well as opening a Pandora's box for fanatical terrorists wishing to make a bio-weapon.

The H5N1 strain of avian influenza has killed hundreds of millions of birds since it first appeared in 1996, but has so far infected only about 600 people who came into direct contact with infected poultry.

What makes H5N1 so dangerous, though, is that it has killed about 60 per cent of those it has infected, making it one of the most lethal known forms of influenza in modern history – a deadliness moderated only by its inability (so far) to spread easily through airborne water droplets.

Scientists are in little doubt that the newly created strain of H5N1 – resulting from just five mutations in two key genes – has the potential to cause a devastating human pandemic that could kill tens of millions of people. The study was carried out on ferrets, which when infected with influenza are the best animal "model" of the human disease.

The details of the study are so sensitive that they are being scrutinised by the US Government's own National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which is understood to have advised American officials that key parts of the scientific paper should be redacted to prevent terrorists from using the information to reverse-engineer their own lethal strain of flu virus.

In an unprecedented move, the Biosecurity board is believed to have told the US Government that there is a serious possibility of potentially dangerous information being misused if the full genetic sequence of the mutated H5N1 virus were to be published in open scientific literature.

A senior source close to the Biosecurity board, who wished to remain anonymous, told The Independent that the National Institutes of Health, which funded the work, is about to make a decision on how much of the scientific paper on the H5N1 super strain should be published, and how much held back.

"There are areas of science where information needs to be controlled," the scientist said. "The most extreme examples are, for instance, how to make a nuclear weapon or any weapon that is going to be used primarily to kill people. The life sciences really haven't encountered this situation before. It's really a new age."

The study was carried out by a Dutch team of scientists led by Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, where the mutated virus is stored under lock and key, but without armed guards, in a basement building.

Dr Fouchier, who declined to answer questions until a decision is made on publication, said in a statement released on the university's website that it only took a small number of mutations to change the avian flu virus into a form that could spread more easily between humans.

"We have discovered that this is indeed possible, and more easily than previously thought. In the laboratory, it was possible to change H5N1 into an aerosol-transmissible virus that can easily be rapidly spread through the air," Dr Fouchier said. "This process could also take place in a natural setting.

"We know which mutation to watch for in the case of an outbreak and we can then stop the outbreak before it is too late. Furthermore, the finding will help in the timely development of vaccinations and medication."

A second, independent team of researchers led by Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the universities of Wisconsin and Tokyo is understood to have carried out similar work with similar results, which has underlined how easy it is to create the super virus with a combination of deliberate mutations and random genetic changes brought about by passing avian flu manually from the nose of one ferret to another.

Some scientists have privately questioned whether such research should have been done in a university department that does not have the sophisticated anti-terrorist security of a military facility. They also point out that experimental viruses kept in seemingly secure laboratories have escaped in the past to cause human epidemics – such as a 1977 flu outbreak.

"There are people who say that the work should never have been done, or if it was done it should have been done in a setting where the information could be better controlled," said the source close to the biosecurity board.

"With influenza now it is possible to reverse engineer the virus. It's pretty common technology in many parts of the world. With the genomic sequence, you can reconstruct it. That's where the information is dangerous," he said.

"It's scary from a number of different angles. You want to have the vaccines and therapeutics in place, and you need to have a much information as you can about a particular virus, but you also worry about it from a biosecurity perspective."

Profile: researcher behind the science

Ron Fouchier

The Dutch virologist started as an expert in HIV, having received his PhD from the University of Amsterdam in 1995. After research at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, he began a new career in the virology department at Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, studying the molecular biology of the influenza A virus.

At a conference in Malta in September, he described his work as something that was "really, really stupid," but ultimately useful for the development of vaccines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

UW bird flu research seen as bioterror threat


Dec. 16, 2011

A University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist who is an expert on the avian flu virus is under scrutiny because of concerns his new research may fall into the wrong hands.

The scientist is Yoshihiro Kawaoka, an eminent professor of virology in the School of Veterinary Medicine who has done research on H5N1, also known as the avian bird flu. His work and similar research independently done by a Dutch scientist have raised concerns in science journals and on an NBC News report that aired Thursday night that touched on such controversial issues as bioterrorism and scientific freedom.

Kawaoka has created a contagion virus in his lab, a UW official confirmed. But the official said he couldn't discuss the nature of the virus because it would compromise the publication of Kawaoka's research.

A Science magazine report detailing the work done by Dutch scientist Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands reported that Fouchier had developed a man-made H5N1 avian influenza strain that had been genetically altered and is now easily transmissible between ferrets. Fouchier reported that studies show that any influenza strain passed among ferrets has also been transmissible among humans and vice versa.

The Science report, which focused on Fouchier's studies, said Kawaoka's research came up with comparable results.

"The research by the Kawaoka and Fouchier teams set out to answer a question that has long puzzled scientists. Does H5N1, which rarely causes human disease, have the potential to trigger a pandemic?" the magazine reported.

In response, UW spokesman Terry Devitt said Science magazine had not seen Kawaoka's research. "Equating the two . . . is a mistake," Devitt said in an email.

Devitt said Kawaoka's work was no longer under review by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. That board provides advice to the National Institutes for Health regarding research that may pose a threat to public health and/or national security.

The board "made recommendations regarding the contents of the manuscript, and those recommendations will be respected as we work with the journal," Devitt said.

A spokesman for the advisory board was not available for comment.
Security defended

Interim UW Chancellor David Ward said he had been briefed about Kawaoka's research about a month ago and said he was confident that the level of security involving Kawaoka's research was adequate.

"In general, I am very comfortable with the way the university has created security around this. . . . We do deserve questions from the public about the fact that this could potentially, you know, be a problem. But the people doing the research were conscious of this right from the start, evaluated the trade-offs, and I think my conclusion was there is really no public threat with what has happened."

Ward added that he supported the publication of Kawaoka's findings.

Devitt added that the H5N1 virus had been studied on campus and elsewhere for years. He said it would be inaccurate to describe H5N1 as a pandemic virus.

"We have comprehensive and stringent biosafety and biosecurity measures in place," Devitt said. "Those measures are constantly reviewed and updated. Also, the university is subject to federal oversight of work with this and other agents, including unannounced inspections."
Warning made

Nevertheless, the leaders of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center raised questions about the research.

"We are playing with fire," said an editorial published online Thursday by the center.

The editorial warned that researchers went too far when they genetically engineered an avian flu strain that could be spread quickly among humans.

"There are no guarantees that such a deadly strain of avian flu would not escape accidentally from the laboratory," said the editorial in the peer-reviewed journal, Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science.

The article was written in response to the Dutch research, but it also applies to avian flu research at UW, a spokeswoman for the Center for Biosecurity said Friday.

The Dutch experiment was performed by internationally respected scientists in biosafety conditions considered top of the line, the editorial noted. "The risk of a person accidentally becoming infected and starting an outbreak with this strain is low. But it is not zero," it said.

An accidental escape of an influenza strain from a lab in 1977 led to widespread flu epidemics, the editorial says. "Given the potential global consequences of an accident with the newly modified strain of avian flu, we are playing with fire."

The Center for Biosecurity said in its editorial that it didn't oppose research in high-containment labs using dangerous pathogens, including H5N1, but research to develop diagnostics, medicines and vaccines for the most-threatening infectious diseases does not require engineering lethal viruses to make them more transmissible between humans.

A critical tenet of the advancement of science is the publication of new research in a form that allows other scientists to reproduce the work, the editorial notes, adding: "This principle should be followed in almost all conceivable circumstances. But in this circumstance, it shouldn't.

"Publishing the methods for transforming the H5N1 virus into a highly transmissible strain would show other scientists around the world how to do it in their own labs," it continued. "One concern is the possibility that the strain would be recreated for malevolent purposes. Even disregarding this risk (which we shouldn't), scientific publication would encourage others that this is a research initiative worthy of additional exploration. . . . Whether this experiment is published or not, it is a reminder of the power of biology and its potential. We need new approaches for the rapid development of large quantities of medicines or vaccines to protect us against new emerging viruses. But engineering highly transmissible strains of avian flu is not the way to get us there."

Devitt added that officials feel publishing Kawaoka's work won't pose a risk beyond what is already known about influenza viruses.

"For example, the genome of the 1918 flu virus, which is far more pathogenic than the virus in question, is already publicly available," he said.

Devitt said Kawaoka's research and the work of other scientists is the best defense against a virus that could become pandemic in nature.

"Based on a review of the research by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity and at their recommendation, any publication will be crafted to minimize the opportunity for misuse," Devitt said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


[Edited on 12-20-2011 by IrC]

BromicAcid - 19-12-2011 at 17:46

This subject reminds me a lot of the opening lines of HP Lovecraft's - Call of Cthulhu
Quote:
The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.


Should we call it quits? I'd say no, but at certain times our only hope seems to be being able to come up with solutions as fast as we can come up with problems. I would think that someone in your example studying basically weponization of a virus should be held accountable, but for what? That same knowledge could be used for good or bad. It could help delay or stop a pandemic. Still, I have chemical knowledge as I am sure some members of this forum have, that we know should not be made generally available. Some call it hording, but personally I don't want a resurgence of phossy jaw or mercury poisoning on my head.

Bot0nist - 19-12-2011 at 17:51

Scary stuff. Thank you for sharing. The threat of genetically modified "super bugs" has long been a great fear of mine. Much more terrifying than nuclear weapons. My father used to say cynically, "One day we will invent our selves into extinction. The last words uttered by mankind will be 'It works!'"

Looks like we have the power to end it all. To little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so is too much, apparently.

IrC - 19-12-2011 at 18:50

Time to post the link again. It fits so well.

Epitaph - King Crimson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhuG2hCJtsk

King Crimson Epitaph LIVE, while someone still lives to play it on stage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Jh49xDNbCg&feature=relat...

I am not saying give up science. Yet this guy wants to publish the information knowing precisely the possible implications? For what? Brownie points that he did it first, for credit, while the living can still give him his just fame and glory for his 'wonderful brilliance'? If a person has any moral decency or conscience whatsoever, then they must surely know some lines should never be crossed. If he is so smart is he unable to read the news, to be aware of a world filled with terrorists just waiting for the ultimate weapon?

Using the excuse he can make vaccines is total crap. If this were true he would not want to publish the virus research knowing how long it would take to create the vaccine and manufacture and distribute enough globally so that his work could not possibly result in a single innocent to suffer and/or die. He would keep the work secret and if ever publicized it would be after there was a cure available everywhere. If a single soul dies the blood is on his (their) hands.

I should add the words to the song:

The wall on which the prophets wrote Is cracking at the seams

Upon the instruments of death The sunlight brightly gleams

When every man is torn apart With nightmares and with dreams

Will no one lay the laurel wreath When silence drowns the screams?

Confusion will be my epitaph As I crawl a cracked and broken path

If we make it we can all sit back and laugh

But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying

Yes, I fear tomorrow I'll be crying

Between the iron gates of fate The seeds of time were sown

And watered by the deeds of those Who know and who are known

Knowledge is a deadly friend When no one sets the rules

The fate of all mankind I see Is in the hands of fools

Confusion will be my epitaph

As I crawl a cracked and broken path

If we make it we can all sit back and laugh

But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying

Yes, I fear tomorrow I'll be crying






[Edited on 12-20-2011 by IrC]

gregxy - 19-12-2011 at 21:44

I think it makes sense to do the research in a secure location for the purpose
of developing a vaccine. But I don't think it makes sense to distribute the
knowledge of how it was done or even that it was done. (just knowing that
something can be done is 1/2 the effort).

Bioweapons are truly terrifying.

Given the economic problems from the rising cost of health and
the fact that our lifespan and "quality of life" are not improving that much any more,
some pretty good arguments could be made that further research in these areas
may do more harm than good.

IrC - 20-12-2011 at 02:24

What bothers me is they are smart enough to fully understand this virus could decimate the earth, killing billions. The 1917 and 1957 flu's were nothing compared to this. Yet knowing it would take a year at best to come up with a vaccine if they were lucky, and much longer to make enough their first thought is to rush out and publish the information on how to create the disease. While no one has yet started on a cure. Since it also infects other mammals and mutates over cycles of replication they are in effect working upon the extinction of all life. What is their true goal? For whales to inherit the earth? While that may sound somewhat dramatic I wonder. Maybe not so much.


It should be stated again:


"An accidental escape of an influenza strain from a lab in 1977 led to widespread flu epidemics, the editorial says. "Given the potential global consequences of an accident with the newly modified strain of avian flu, we are playing with fire."

The Center for Biosecurity said in its editorial that it didn't oppose research in high-containment labs using dangerous pathogens, including H5N1, but research to develop diagnostics, medicines and vaccines for the most-threatening infectious diseases does not require engineering lethal viruses to make them more transmissible between humans.

A critical tenet of the advancement of science is the publication of new research in a form that allows other scientists to reproduce the work, the editorial notes, adding: "This principle should be followed in almost all conceivable circumstances. But in this circumstance, it shouldn't.

"Publishing the methods for transforming the H5N1 virus into a highly transmissible strain would show other scientists around the world how to do it in their own labs," it continued. "One concern is the possibility that the strain would be recreated for malevolent purposes. Even disregarding this risk (which we shouldn't), scientific publication would encourage others that this is a research initiative worthy of additional exploration."






[Edited on 12-20-2011 by IrC]

hissingnoise - 20-12-2011 at 03:33

I haven't had time to plough through the verbiage but it seems fairly obvious to me that to attempt to impose restrictions on scientific inquiry because of man's intrinsic stupidity is itself, the very height of stupidity!

I mean, what the fuck could be worse than a censorship of knowledge???




[Edited on 20-12-2011 by hissingnoise]

fledarmus - 20-12-2011 at 10:05

Yeah, if that first cave man had never shown anybody his idea about sharpening up his stones before hitting animals with them, we would have been much better off today. He should have realized that somebody could have used his sharpened stone idea to hit another person instead, and touched off an arms race we still haven't reached the end of.

And fire - whose idea was that? Deliberately poisoning our atmosphere with CO2!

Rosco Bodine - 20-12-2011 at 10:10

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
I mean, what the fuck could be worse than a censorship of knowledge???


Small children with loaded firearms .......

Let's responsibly at least wait until they are five or six years old and have some BB gun experience having shown some aptitude :D

Polverone - 20-12-2011 at 10:56

If every kind of scientific inquiry had the same beneficial effects on human comfort as the discovery of fire or hunting tools then I would agree it's absurd to refuse to investigate some things. But other kinds of scientific inquiry seem to have no corresponding big benefit to counter their obvious risks. The development of thermonuclear explosives, nerve gases, and engineered plagues seem to fall in that realm.

Research on offensive chemical and biological warfare has often taken place under cover of developing new defenses. Further, even if the program operators genuinely reject offensive use, it was less than a decade ago that someone inside the US bioweapons program stole anthrax spores and used them for terror. It only takes one trusted yet deranged person with access to super-plague to unleash catastrophe. If it is important for defensive purposes to test different factors governing lethality, communicability, etc. then it seems this should be done one factor at a time so that there's never a complete super-plague sitting in the lab or the literature, waiting for some fool or madman.

Adas - 20-12-2011 at 11:03

I will never understand why the hell they make viruses, that can kill millions? I'd rather make some harmless bacteria making useful compounds like bio-fuel and so. I think, making viruses is absolutely pointless and dangerous.

fledarmus - 20-12-2011 at 11:28

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  
If every kind of scientific inquiry had the same beneficial effects on human comfort as the discovery of fire or hunting tools then I would agree it's absurd to refuse to investigate some things. But other kinds of scientific inquiry seem to have no corresponding big benefit to counter their obvious risks.


Unfortunately, that is an ex post facto analysis. Put yourself in their place - if your only experience with fire had been forest or grass fires, what would you have thought about your cave mate actually trying to make some in your cave? Would you have thought, "oh, what a wonderful idea, I always feel so warm when I am downwind of a large grass fire, I can't wait to feel like that in my own cave!" or would you have thought, "oh, hell no! Right now we only have to worry about fire when there's been a lot of lightning after some really dry weather, and it devastates the entire landscape and drives off all the game when it comes, and you want to try to MAKE it?!?"

As for the viruses, studying the mechanisms of viral infection have proven very useful in developing gene transfer technologies, allowing us to study effects of specific genes on cells and organisms as well as using cells as factories for producing biological products. And in response to the argument that there is no defensive reason for studying how to make viruses more infective, let me ask a question - how would you study how vulnerable your computer is to a viral attack? You do it by trying to design viruses that will attack it, identifying the weak points, and doing something about them.

Polverone - 20-12-2011 at 12:26

Quote: Originally posted by fledarmus  

As for the viruses, studying the mechanisms of viral infection have proven very useful in developing gene transfer technologies, allowing us to study effects of specific genes on cells and organisms as well as using cells as factories for producing biological products. And in response to the argument that there is no defensive reason for studying how to make viruses more infective, let me ask a question - how would you study how vulnerable your computer is to a viral attack? You do it by trying to design viruses that will attack it, identifying the weak points, and doing something about them.


Please don't address a straw-man argument that I never made. I have no objection to studying viruses in general. I do have objections to making super-plagues in the lab. Engineering some relatively benign virus to increase its communicability should have been a sufficient proof-of-concept without the risk that by accident or insanity real super-plague gets loose.

Humans are not easily redesigned, so making more and more lethal things in hopes that humans will become less and less killable is foolish. That's actually not even how secure computer systems are designed.

fledarmus - 20-12-2011 at 14:59

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  
Quote: Originally posted by fledarmus  

.


That's actually not even how secure computer systems are designed.


I call your attention to:

Security vulnerability in printers

Hacks that corrupt batteries

It sounds to my like researchers are designing ways to hack systems in order to find ways to defend against them...

hissingnoise - 20-12-2011 at 15:57

Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  
I would agree it's absurd to refuse to investigate some things. But other kinds of scientific inquiry seem to have no corresponding big benefit to counter their obvious risks. The development of thermonuclear explosives, nerve gases, and engineered plagues seem to fall in that realm.

The 'Mexican standoff' we call the 'Cold War' couldn't have existed without nuclear arsenals and the study of nerve agents is making contributions in some important areas in the bio-sciences.
And who can say what potential the modification of viruses may eventually have for research in immunology?
Don't forget that nuclear fusion may, one day, replace all our existing energy-production systems!
There is no such thing as valueless scientific research . . .

Polverone - 20-12-2011 at 19:55

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote: Originally posted by Polverone  
I would agree it's absurd to refuse to investigate some things. But other kinds of scientific inquiry seem to have no corresponding big benefit to counter their obvious risks. The development of thermonuclear explosives, nerve gases, and engineered plagues seem to fall in that realm.

The 'Mexican standoff' we call the 'Cold War' couldn't have existed without nuclear arsenals and the study of nerve agents is making contributions in some important areas in the bio-sciences.
And who can say what potential the modification of viruses may eventually have for research in immunology?
Don't forget that nuclear fusion may, one day, replace all our existing energy-production systems!
There is no such thing as valueless scientific research . . .



I was very careful how I phrased my objections. I'll buy a hat and then eat it if immunology researchers find this engineered super-plague a useful tool.

I believe that fission weapons are/were destructive enough to deter rational actors from war. Somebody crazy enough to start a nuclear war doesn't seem likely to be deterred by raising the stakes to thermonuclear war, and if deterrence fails the consequences are substantially worse. Peaceful fusion programs can yield militarily useful information but the reverse is not true: a commitment to developing thermonuclear weapons does not advance the quest for peaceful thermonuclear energy.

The weaponization of nerve gases, and the development of deadlier agents after WW II, has very little relevance to biochemical research. The parameters sought and optimized by military forces are irrelevant to or even contrary to the parameters useful to biochemical researchers. What biochemist optimizes reagents for deadliness, persistence, multi-ton production, and ability to thwart battlefield countermeasures? The development of the G-agent series after tabun, and the later V-agent series, was useful to 3 small groups:

1) Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.
2) The people who earned a livelihood manufacturing nerve gases and associated products.
3) The people who later earned a livelihood destroying the output of group 2.

2 and 3 are like a jobs program of digging and refilling holes only with more potential for dangerous mishaps.
Quote:
I call your attention to:

Security vulnerability in printers

Hacks that corrupt batteries

It sounds to my like researchers are designing ways to hack systems in order to find ways to defend against them...


You'll notice that the researchers did not (e.g.) actually release code to steal information via the printer vulnerability, even though their research showed it was possible. This is akin to the difference between showing that it is possible to make a relatively harmless human virus more contagious through engineering vs. demonstrating enhanced contagion with a deadly virus.

Further, I wouldn't even say that researchers are developing hacks to discover how to defend against them. The kind of problems they found are well-known, just affecting yet another group of products. The remedies require no new developments in computer security. The hacks are more to prod companies into doing something about product problems that could have been identified and solved before they ever hit store shelves (but weren't, because the economic incentives weren't there).

AndersHoveland - 20-12-2011 at 20:03

I really think the idea of "scientific ethics" is overrated. The main hindrance to the progression in science seems to be funding, rather than the limits of human ingenuity. If a scientist objects to doing unethical research, there will always be someone else to take his place. What I mean is that the abstinance of an individual, or even group of scientists, from engaging in research will in no way hinder the objectionable research.

I think ethical considerations in science actually are, in practice, only personal ethical considerations. There are very few nuclear scientists (many of whom are unemployed) who would decline an excellent job offer, even if it was in a controversial country with a poor human rights record, run by an evil dictator with ambitions for foreign conquest.

IrC - 20-12-2011 at 21:23

I think AH I am unable to follow your reasoning as it applies to individual responsibility. A poor outlook on humanity but I suppose realistic as much as I hate to think so. However I do not know if you would find western scientists who needing cash would help a terrorist entity develop weapons of mass destruction. I actually met an unemployed NW designer once, he was driving a truck. Seems most places he looked said he was over credentialed for them, I assume not wanting to hire someone with his pay grade. There he was doing a lower job to keep bills paid with no thought whatsoever of aiding some third world dictator. Are you saying if you did not rob banks someone else would so why not you? Or do I read that wrong? It sounds like 'why should we have morals as long as there will always be someone else who does not'. Not implying anything about you, you made the statement so I am using you as my example. The way I see it if someone would involve themselves in such an endeavor it is because they had already demonized their 'target' in their own mind. I have no doubt there are also those who have no conscience and would target their own family for profit. Sad but most likely true. However this is not on the point I was making previously, that is they did not need to weaponize the flu to develop cures. I repeat the statement by someone very much in the forefront of bio research:

"research to develop diagnostics, medicines and vaccines for the most-threatening infectious diseases does not require engineering lethal viruses to make them more transmissible between humans".

How many times does it need to be said you can cure a virus without the need to weaponize it. Making Avian flu dangerously contagious so that it can spread more easily serves no purpose other than as a weapon period.

There is strong evidence that many of the bad flues which have injured and killed countless thousands in the last 60 years were caused by researchers in the field. However I have yet to see a cure for either the flu or even the common cold. So to all the defenders of unimpeded bio research my question is what good have they done so far and at what cost?







Bot0nist - 20-12-2011 at 21:40

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
There is strong evidence that many of the bad flues which have injured and killed countless thousands in the last 60 years were caused by researchers in the field.



Can you point me to where you read that please. I am very interested.

IrC - 20-12-2011 at 23:05

It would take endless hours of research to go back and find all the documentation I had read over the last few years. One piece of information is in the articles I started this thread with. I guess you did not read them completely but:

"An accidental escape of an influenza strain from a lab in 1977 proves the possibility: That accident led to widespread flu epidemics. Given the potential global consequences of an accident with the newly modified strain of avian flu, we are playing with fire." From:

http://www.upmc-biosecurity.org/website/resources/publicatio...

The point about suffering and death I added simply because through experience I know this is what widespread flu outbreaks do. The weak; elderly, young, and in between age health compromised die in large numbers. About 11 years ago I was in New Mexico and there were many deaths of the elderly from a very bad flu going around at the time. I caught it and it was a worse than average one from past experience. I had one friend about 45 years old in much better average health than me miss two weeks of work he was so sick. In short most flues are far more deadly than many give them credit for. This we know from news and statistics. Simply a matter of researching past history. As to other flues yes I have read many reports on this subject from many locations such as the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC, and many similar entities. If you doubt this do the research and study the casualty statistics from various flu outbreaks.

Perhaps if I have time I will go find a few more links to add on this but right now I am trying to get a program for a Pic16F877 in a little robot brain I am working on to function correctly and 12AX7 is never around when I need him to do my work for me.

My problem is in still having trouble relating machine cycles to real world timing events such as reading sonar pulses. As fate would have it I never have a chainsaw around when I need one.

Going further I should add mortality rate is a very important factor. If you read the text below from the link (just above) you will see that it was only 2 percent for the 1918 pandemic, killing millions. Look closely at that number for this now weaponized avian flu and carefully think about the possible outcome.

"Over the past 8 years, H5N1 avian influenza has sickened 571 people, killing 59% of them. To give some perspective, the fatality rate of the virus that caused the 1918 Great Pandemic was 2%, and that pandemic killed on the order of 50 million people."

Is there really any more I can say or are the numbers very clear? I could add this. I caught that late 70's flu and it nearly took me out, making me wish it had at the time. I remember it quite clearly. Others did die. Yet to this day no one has cured the flu so what was gained. I also remember equally clearly the widespread propaganda from Uncle Gestapo about how we J.Q. public must hurry in and get the flu shot. Which I refused to do being the untrusting soul I am. Good thing since years later the stats on how many people were paralyzed for life and or otherwise injured from getting the vaccine started showing up in various publications. I guarantee you the government was not making this known at the time.


[Edited on 12-21-2011 by IrC]

IrC - 21-12-2011 at 01:27

A.H., I really intended this to be a serious discussion and with all the 'Jews are taking over the world links' on the page you just gave us I can see an honest discussion is not your intention. Please go watch a few more outer limits reruns and get back to us if you have something of value to add.

Bringing up the 1977 flu outbreak and it's likely cause was not a conspiracy nut act on my part, this is supported by the opinion of many in high positions among the most well credentialed bio research entities on the planet.

I cannot say if you are being serious with the information on the page itself nor if the information therein is of value scientifically yet the links at the bottom tend to leave me with suspicion of it's value. The link titles speak for themselves.

Related La Voz de Aztlan articles:

The Israelization of the USA and its Dangers to Mexico

Zionist Plot to Take Over the Mexican Presidency

Zionist Terrorists Arrested Inside Mexican Congress

Mexican Attorney General Releases Zionist Terrorists

Mexico condemns Israel over genocide in Gaza


To post below: OK I can see the possibility but your removal of that post makes me appear to be a little deranged making this post. Oh well, I can live with that.

Just so I do not look completely nuts this was the link you posted.

http://www.aztlan.net/mexicans_are_now_endangered.htm

I no longer look at all things as being from outer space since in the last couple of decades today's science fiction becomes tomorrows science facts fairly often. Picard was using an Ipad in the 90's. I always thought Jobs was a scifi nut and wonder if he did get the idea from the show.


[Edited on 12-21-2011 by IrC]

AndersHoveland - 21-12-2011 at 02:21

Seriousness was obviously not intended, but it did suggest the intriguing possibility of genetically-programmed infectious diseases designed to target a specific group of people.

Bot0nist - 21-12-2011 at 05:05

IRC, thanks. I wasn't implying that you were making outlandish claims and demanding source. I was just very interested in some of the information you provided and was curious if you had more on hand. I am not prone to flights of fancy or conspiracy theories, but the tampering with of plagues could have some serious realistic implications.

As a side note, both me and my brother where hospitalized in the mid 1990s with influenza. Worst experience if our lives. I really thought we would die.

fledarmus - 21-12-2011 at 05:57

@ Polverone - I was also very careful about how I phrased my comments. I have not yet commented about the perils of publishing all research, only the issue of refusing to allow the research to exist.
Quote:

You'll notice that the researchers did not (e.g.) actually release code to steal information via the printer vulnerability, even though their research showed it was possible. This is akin to the difference between showing that it is possible to make a relatively harmless human virus more contagious through engineering vs. demonstrating enhanced contagion with a deadly virus.


No, your A does not equal your B. They are not akin. The researchers not actually releasing the code even though their research showed it was possible is akin to the viral researching demonstrating enhanced contagion without releasing the technique. The battery researchers were able to turn 7 computers into bricks, which was a demonstration that their technique for killing computers worked. The virus researchers were able to demonstrate enhanced contagion by making particular modifications in the virus, thus proving the technique for increasing transmission worked.
Quote:

Further, I wouldn't even say that researchers are developing hacks to discover how to defend against them. The kind of problems they found are well-known, just affecting yet another group of products. The remedies require no new developments in computer security. The hacks are more to prod companies into doing something about product problems that could have been identified and solved before they ever hit store shelves (but weren't, because the economic incentives weren't there).


I'm not sure I am following your logic here. Are you saying that there is no research into finding weaknesses in computer systems? Or that nobody is developing new ways of attacking computers for the specific purpose of trying to defend against those attacks? Or that the two examples that I gave were simply publicity stunts designed to draw attention to a weakness that was obvious to these two researchers but that wasn't seen as a threat sufficient to defend against?

Personally, I find that the knowledge that one research group can enhance the transmissibility of a virus to be strong economic incentive to research into ways to prevent viral transmission. I also believe that the specific modifications they made, if carefully studied, would lead to a large increase in the understanding of the mechanisms of viral transmission, and in particular to the differences in pathogenesis among viruses, with possible public health consequences in recognizing when and to what level specific viral infections need to be treated.

As a culture, I think we have gone over the edge on risk analysis and prevention - insurance companies, massive liability lawsuits for failing to forsee possible threats, and our attempts to build a bubble-wrapped world that couldn't possibly hurt anyone have gone too far. But refusing to allow research on something which could be the next big threat is like walking across an interstate blindfolded. You have to know the likelihood of a potential threat as well as the possible consequences of that threat before you can do anything about reducing its likelihood.

As I indicated earlier, I am concerned with the negative consequences of cutting off research in particular areas before we even know what can be learned. The issue of whether such results should be disseminated, how broadly, and with what restrictions, is a much more difficult and thorny field.

Rosco Bodine - 21-12-2011 at 06:24

When professional ethics conflicts with personal ethics, honorable men resign. They do not continue, "just following orders" or "just doing their job" in any form or fashion. There really is no secular guidance for the conscience as to what is wisdom more definitive than the following quote from good authority.
Quote:

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Matthew 16:26, words of Jesus Christ


Of course it can be recognized a prerequisite and premise for understanding the wisdom of this truth necessarily resides in any person's belief that the person actually has a soul, and those who do not believe they have a soul to lose will sell cheaply that in which they place no value. Here is found really a fundamental of morality, and a fundamental of amorality. It also reveals why any secular ethics are simply rationalizations of men which may or may not be valid, and become the basis of a man invented religion amended whenever need arises as a situational ethic having no absolutes other than being absolutely presumptuous that man decides what is right for man, rather than that God declares what is the law. For clarity and precision, this is one matter of serious business where there is no ambiguity, either a person gets it right or they get it wrong. There is no gray area or middle ground whatever.

IrC - 21-12-2011 at 09:11

Quote: Originally posted by Bot0nist  
IRC, thanks. I wasn't implying that you were making outlandish claims and demanding source. I was just very interested in some of the information you provided and was curious if you had more on hand. I am not prone to flights of fancy or conspiracy theories, but the tampering with of plagues could have some serious realistic implications.

As a side note, both me and my brother where hospitalized in the mid 1990s with influenza. Worst experience if our lives. I really thought we would die.


I did not take your question that way, to me it sounded like honest interest. After I replied to you AH posted a link and later deleted the post. That was the reason for my 2nd post after my reply to you. Actually AH had made an interesting point in that post. Somehow I do not doubt if not now then eventually someone will do work along the lines he mentioned. The 57 flu nearly killed me. I did my first grade year from either the hospital or home as many complications set in which kept me down for 10 months. Every week night my teacher brought my homework and this kept me from being set back a year in grade. My 2nd bad bout was the 1977 flu. 3rd was 1994. There were many others in between but those three were the ones I remember the most. Or the worst.

I think Rosco has a point the world would be less dangerous if more people had a conscience and worried about the consequences of their actions.

gregxy - 21-12-2011 at 10:37

About 10 years ago researchers in Australia created
a genetically altered mouse pox virus that was 90%
lethal and unable to be controlled by vaccination.
There were concerns that the technique could be used
to make bio weapons.

Here is an excellent interview with the researchers involved
and their opinions on the ethics:



http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v11/n1/full/embor2009270...

[Edited on 21-12-2011 by gregxy]

MagicJigPipe - 22-12-2011 at 00:01

Quote:
and those who do not believe they have a soul to lose will sell cheaply that in which they place no value.


Oh no you didn't. That's like saying that atheists are more likely to be immoral. GIVE ME SOME EVIDENCE FOR THIS OR QUIT SPOUTING IT. And for god's sake don't bring up Stalin because the argument is flawed before it even begins to not make sense.

Also, do you closely adhere to all moral teachings in the Bible? If you do than I can say, with near certainty, that you are a reprehensible person by today's moral standards. If you arbitrarily select which moral tenets in the Bible to adhere to or select them based on personal taste, how the hell is that any different from just not using the Bible at all? It's like the difference between randomly selecting numbers from a list and just making them up. You get the same results (except perhaps you may be limited by the finite properties of any list) but you don't have to wade through the other BS on the way.

And how do you explain the fact that most of us, in fact, don't get most of our morals from the Bible? If we did, well, you know what's in there. How do you know what's in there and still ... Oh, some are just metaphorical. Well what standard do you use to determine which are metaphorical and which are to be taken literally?

I think your zealotry blinds you to what is most likely true: morals come from OUR BRAINS and our collective, social consciousness which comes from millions of years of evolution. Our morals change constantly and many societies change regardless of the Bible or any piece of mythology. GIVE ME ONE PIECE OF GOOD EVIDENCE THAT PROVES OTHERWISE. Do it, please. I like refuting such things. It's easy. Furthermore, it is the antithesis of scientific/rationality to keep spouting things as if they are absolutely true and to offer no way for any one to ever prove them wrong. I don't think such "invincible" arguments or assertions are at home on a forum such as this.

I took a little breather and still decided to go ahead and post this. Why? Because it's WRONG to let such statements go unchallenged. Look, I'm sorry for posting this off-topic stuff but I can't just let this claim be made without arguing against it. I really don't want a confrontation but I can't let such hogwash with no basis in reality be regurgitated without any resistance as if it were something that was independently verifiable, no matter how subtle and cloaked in sincerity and good intentions it is.

Rosco does say more ... "religious" (to put it nicely) things, I know. But a lot of those I can live with. This most recent assertion I cannot.

You'll get no complaint from me if this is deleted... for the right reasons, of course.

[Edited on 12-22-2011 by MagicJigPipe]

Rosco Bodine - 22-12-2011 at 02:05

What I see is not blindness. And what I said is not untruth. It simply bothers you that at Christmas time any Christian should point to the certain moral authority of Jesus Christ, because that truth challenges what you have decided is the supremacy instead of Jesus Christ, the utter nihilism of secular atheist philosophy where the real untruth, darkness, and hopelessness of a lost world is found.

I choose and decide instead to believe The Truth, The Light, and The Way.

Merry Christmas

hissingnoise - 22-12-2011 at 05:19

Quote:
What I see is not blindness.

What I see is religion being again dragged into an arena that should be free of this silliness . . .

hissingnoise - 22-12-2011 at 05:34

- MJP, your sig. says it all - never has a thread been so complemented by a few well-chosen words . . . ?
It should be committed to memory by everyone here!


IrC - 22-12-2011 at 09:15

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
- MJP, your sig. says it all - never has a thread been so complemented by a few well-chosen words . . . ?
It should be committed to memory by everyone here!




I assume you mean:

""There must be no barriers to freedom of inquiry ... There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors. ... We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it and that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. And we know that as long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never be lost, and science can never regress." -J. Robert Oppenheimer"

Yet nowhere in those words do I see "free to create all the mass death and destruction as or hearts desire".

To me this is where 'morals' comes into the picture. To weigh in the balance risk VS gain. One of the leading authorities in the field of biotechnology has stated a vaccine to a virus can be developed without the need to alter the virus to make it spread more easily. This eliminates the 'we can better create cures' defense. Add to that the designers haste to publish the results and procedures for this terrible invention knowing there is as yet no cure and the mortality rate is 59 percent. I defy anyone to defend the actions of this person (or group).





hissingnoise - 22-12-2011 at 10:14

Quote:
Yet nowhere in those words do I see "free to create all the mass death and destruction as or hearts desire".

Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.

THOMAS HUXLEY (1825-1895)


quicksilver - 22-12-2011 at 10:25

This is a very interesting discussion.
There has been a great deal of material written on medical ethics, however science in general has such a broad base that it may be vital to weigh the potential benefit vs risk on a very individuated basis.

I feel strongly about my community, my neighbors, my family, etc. Speaking only for myself, I can find some clarity when I view experimentation in the light of it's impact on others. What concerns me is censorship. Yet making available information, puts a wider scope on a discussion of ethics as it permits the individual to discern his own ethical agenda.

We could examine each situation individually but what happens when an individual has a substantially different "moral compass"? Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" was a novel that illustrated this to a limited extent.

IrC - 22-12-2011 at 10:37

Quoting hissingnoise :

"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.

THOMAS HUXLEY (1825-1895)"

His words are without knowledge when it comes to the subject of science today. I point out not only is he dead, he also did not have the benefit of the last 117 years worth of information (since he died, longer since he wrote that). He could not have conceived of pushing a button in one location and wiping out half a billion somewhere else on the other side of the planet. He did not know nor could conceive of missiles coming in from orbit carrying nukes or bioweapons. He never saw WWI, WWII, the soon to be announced WWIII, and so on. So really how much wisdom in his pre 1900 words is of value today?


I should add: When he said "follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses nature leads" he did not say "follow humbly wherever and to whatever abysses madmen take you". I think the difference is critical and I think it is being overlooked.


[Edited on 12-22-2011 by IrC]

hissingnoise - 22-12-2011 at 10:53

The meaning of the word "abyss" is the same now as it was then, and why substitute "madmen" for "nature" - psychiatry is the science concerned there . . .


IrC - 22-12-2011 at 11:22

He was talking about the study of science as found in nature. Or in effect to study nature no matter how dangerous if one wished to discover new truths. He did not say study weapons of mass destruction designed by men. You are trying to equate one with the other and this does not fly. In my opinion only a madman will weaponize a virus. Make it more deadly and spread more easily. I do not care what the motivation is. Nor do I think there is any justification possible.

AndersHoveland - 22-12-2011 at 12:16

The subject of how ethics relates to scientists is an interesting one, for a different reason.
Scientists tend to be much more idealistic than the typical person. But they also are more likely to be anti-social and completely absorbed into their work.

Rosco Bodine - 22-12-2011 at 12:32

When a miracle is what is needed, looking beyond science and philosophy for a supplier of what is needed is not unreasonable or irrational. Maybe the world is like a stage for a drama being acted out by players on the stage, a kind of Kabuki theater for the entertainment of the almighty. The antagonists are those apple polishing servants of the talking snake who tempts naked wives of men while the husband is away, and the protagonists are those hymn singing, bible toting and scripture believing disciples of that divine personage who walks on water and raises the dead to life again. In the final analysis maybe who it is that are the rational actors, are those who don't have to discover and rediscover continually
that stop drop and roll doesn't work in hell.

hissingnoise - 22-12-2011 at 13:37

Quote:
Nor do I think there is any justification possible.

Just as well then that science needs no justification beyond itself . . .

AndersHoveland - 22-12-2011 at 14:08

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Just as well then that science needs no justification beyond itself . . .


This is one of the reasons why science is so dangerous. It takes on a life of its own, for its own ends, frequently with no regard for human well-being. I am not arguing for attempts to curtail this- I think it is inevitible.

IrC - 22-12-2011 at 14:10

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
Nor do I think there is any justification possible.

Just as well then that science needs no justification beyond itself . . .



All I can say is the argument with your view is pointless. If science is an entity which can provide self justification, I would ask who is this entity which has no moral compass to decide no end is required for the misery and death it produces. Or for the potential to create the same. As long as evil people exist I see no reason to provide them the tools to amplify their nature. One mans opinion for what it's worth.

I see this in the perspective of typically the young who have not suffered enough nor seen enough suffering. I do not think the Kurds who had nerve agents and various and sundry other chemical weapons dropped on them by Saddam would hold such a liberal view on 'science with no holds barred'. To name one example of many. Perhaps in 50 years assuming people still exist your perspective will have changed.


quicksilver - 22-12-2011 at 14:13

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
He was talking about the study of science as found in nature. Or in effect to study nature no matter how dangerous if one wished to discover new truths. He did not say study weapons of mass destruction designed by men. You are trying to equate one with the other and this does not fly. In my opinion only a madman will weaponize a virus. Make it more deadly and spread more easily. I do not care what the motivation is. Nor do I think there is any justification possible.




Here is an example of tough twist. We have learned much of the human genome. What if we reached a fork in the road where the research could be used to help mankind or create something terrible. Should we abandon the research because of the potential for misuse? How would we decide whether the risk is too great (or out-weighs the benefit)? Who would arbitrate: the scientist(s) or the public?

IrC - 22-12-2011 at 15:07

I would say the innocent most at risk, and those most able to judge. This eliminates all politicians right off the bat.

Rosco Bodine - 22-12-2011 at 17:23

For science, the elephant in the room is nuclear energy, as in controlled chain reaction where nuclear fuel is used for power generation rather than for weapons. If nuclear energy had been pursued in development of its potential for safely producing cheap power and synthetic fuels ......instead of nuclear energy technology having been primarily pursued for weapons development......wouldn't the world be a better place today for everyone? Human nature caused a different set of priorities to apply so the more noble purpose of nuclear science was largely subverted. Keeping warm the good guys was a lower priority than burning up the bad guys. A price already has been paid for the human version of wisdom which has been applied to many scenarios and certainly there is more cost to yet be paid. Errors are generally costly when dealing with weighty matters.

Bot0nist - 22-12-2011 at 17:54

Agree in this matter, very wise words Rosco. Perhaps mankind wasn't ready for nuclear fission just yet. Years of evolution taught us to take advantage of every resource and eliminate opposition with force. In this case we almost eliminated our collective civilizations with a power that could sustain us for eons and escort us into the heavens.

[Edited on 23-12-2011 by Bot0nist]

Rosco Bodine - 22-12-2011 at 21:57

Something that is sure to stick firmly in the Darwinian craw is the historical account of at least some ancient humans having natural lifespans of many centuries duration. And for those who dismiss that as being simply Hebrew legend, the same curious report of unusal longevity of some ancient humans is not exclusively a biblical source. I haven't really looked into this lately, but it does represent an exception or anomaly that would seem to somewhat throw a wrench
into the premise that evolution / devolution are somehow predictable and it would seem certainly that natural selection is in flux, not just governed by environmental stressors .....but also greatly influenced by pure chance, or
perhaps in some cases by design. Genetic engineering by selective breeding has been going on for millennia before anyone even knew what a gene was.

[Edited on 23-12-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

hissingnoise - 23-12-2011 at 03:08

Quote:
If science is an entity which can provide self justification, I would ask who is this entity which has no moral compass to decide no end is required for the misery and death it produces.

-IrC, if science were to be subject to plebeian approval, there would be none, or very little, of the great technological advances we take for granted.
Attitudes like yours, if acted upon, would propel humanity back to the 'stoneage' in pretty short order.
I mean, the idea of picking and choosing only avenues of inquiry that are morally acceptable to non-scientists is plainly ridiculous!
If you can't see that, you're not thinking hard enough . . .
And I can't believe you equate science with misery and death!
Those things are purely the product of human frailty - nothing whatever to do with science!



Ephoton - 23-12-2011 at 03:11

there is also another simple explanation for what you describe rosco.

qigong but na thats like witch craft mixed with fitness.

there are many ways to many places.

the main thing is that we have choices of our own and that we each support each other in those
choices if they do not hurt others.
unfortunatly a lot of us can not agree in what is hurting others so we still even in this scientific arena
have differences of opinion.

IrC - 23-12-2011 at 05:07

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
If science is an entity which can provide self justification, I would ask who is this entity which has no moral compass to decide no end is required for the misery and death it produces.

-IrC, if science were to be subject to plebeian approval, there would be none, or very little, of the great technological advances we take for granted.
Attitudes like yours, if acted upon, would propel humanity back to the 'stoneage' in pretty short order.
I mean, the idea of picking and choosing only avenues of inquiry that are morally acceptable to non-scientists is plainly ridiculous!
If you can't see that, you're not thinking hard enough . . .
And I can't believe you equate science with misery and death!
Those things are purely the product of human frailty - nothing whatever to do with science!


Clearly you only understand in blind extremes. These words are gibberish without reason. How do you arrive at the extreme that my attitude would land us in the stone age using my words as your data. Many times on this board I have proclaimed we need to build more reactors to do away with coal fired generation of power. Just exactly how many nuclear reactors did the caveman build if we are to believe your conclusions. Science is my life. But to spend more time in a fools debate would only make me one. My thread started with the point that we should not weaponize the flu. You conclude I am saying we should have no science at all. You are simply incapable of seeing things in any other form than extremes. I am quite certain my science is far more advanced than yours. To discover what level of understanding you have achieved explain why Styrofoam is an important component in a multi stage radiation implosion device of Teller-Ulam design.

hissingnoise - 23-12-2011 at 05:21

Quote:
Something that is sure to stick firmly in the Darwinian craw is the historical account of at least some ancient humans having natural lifespans of many centuries duration. And for those who dismiss that as being simply Hebrew legend, the same curious report of unusal longevity of some ancient humans is not exclusively a biblical source.

What total, utter balderdash - how any adult can give credence to something so risible does indeed stick in my craw!
And I must assume you believe the Earth to be no more than six thousand years as well . . .
Ordinary facts seem to have no significance to you!

hissingnoise - 23-12-2011 at 05:47

Quote:
To discover what level of understanding you have achieved explain why Styrofoam is an important component in a multi stage radiation implosion device of Teller-Ulam design.

Oh yeah, asking a question, the answer to which is available to anyone with an internet connection, is real fucking significant . . .
Top of the class, IrC?

Rosco Bodine - 23-12-2011 at 08:45

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
Something that is sure to stick firmly in the Darwinian craw is the historical account of at least some ancient humans having natural lifespans of many centuries duration. And for those who dismiss that as being simply Hebrew legend, the same curious report of unusal longevity of some ancient humans is not exclusively a biblical source.

What total, utter balderdash - how any adult can give credence to something so risible does indeed stick in my craw!
And I must assume you believe the Earth to be no more than six thousand years as well . . .
Ordinary facts seem to have no significance to you!



Instead of making dumbass straw man arguments that are farcical non responses, why don't you respond or try responding to what I actually said?

Bot0nist - 23-12-2011 at 09:40

The claim that a man or woman lived two centuries, especially without any modern medical advances( or even with) seems just as farcical as the belief that the earth is only several thousand years old, IMO.
Just because somebody wrote something down thousands of years ago does not make it true. On the contrary, the older a proclaimed "fact" is, the more it should be scrutinized and its validity questioned based on things like what intellectual tools did the source possess(scientific method, etc.)

Rosco Bodine - 23-12-2011 at 09:45

There are many artifacts that indicate ancient people were certainly able to notice what period of time was one year and were also able to count, and read and write. Not everything recorded should necessarily be in doubt simply because it was recorded long ago. Science does not even have accurate longevity information on several currently existing species of seabirds, sharks, and turtles .....it is unknown how long some animals may actually live because they have outlived the scientists who tagged them for study.

[Edited on 23-12-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

Bot0nist - 23-12-2011 at 09:51

There are also many outlandish claims made throughout history that would be considered laughable in light of what we know today. I wasn't meaning that old knowledge can't be factual, only that it can't be assumed factual based on its age and endurance through time alone.

Rosco Bodine - 23-12-2011 at 09:56

What seems outlandish today may not have been outlandish five thousand years ago. There is plenty about the ancient world that is a complete mystery, and some evidence that those ancients were a lot smarter than it would seem they should be. It would not be entirely preposterous to hypothesize that during human history there may exist an altered timeline, whether that was accidental or deliberate.
Maybe Dr. Who scraped his knee on a progenitor paradox :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrs2iDsccw Out Of The Blue - APP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj3PWUF7zAw Musings on the Origins of Darwin and other dubiously intelligent Life ....the theory of supernatural election :P

[Edited on 23-12-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

Bot0nist - 23-12-2011 at 10:04

Ever see the series, ancient aliens? lol. Thus thread is now way of topic, but what the hell. Merry Christmas Rosco!

{The Bot succumbs to frustrated, hair-pulling, maniacal laughter and logs off.} :D

quicksilver - 23-12-2011 at 12:37

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
I would say the innocent most at risk, and those most able to judge. This eliminates all politicians right off the bat.



Yes, ideally.

But what about a "domino" chain of events? Example:
Methods are devised to cure a great many illnesses; yet the world cannot support a population that would result. Does anyone have the right to withhold a cure for disease?

On another level:
-=Merry Christmas=-

drive safe!

[Edited on 23-12-2011 by quicksilver]

DerAlte - 23-12-2011 at 12:44

Rosco wrote above:
Quote:
It also reveals why any secular ethics are simply rationalizations of men which may or may not be valid, and become the basis of a man invented religion amended whenever need arises as a situational ethic having no absolutes other than being absolutely presumptuous that man decides what is right for man, rather than that God declares what is the law.


(1)ANY ethics, whether secular or ordained by any religion whatsoever, are "simply rationalizations of men which may or may not be valid." There can be no absolute standard valid for all place and time.

At the basis of morals lies the ability to distinguish 'right' from 'wrong' actions. This appears to be innate in mankind and even dogs and other mammals, or if not learned very early. Nearly all areas of the globe have completely independently evolved very similar moral codes, regardless of religions or ethnicity. The difference between the meaning of the words moral and ethical is slight, but ethical has more to do with external social interactions and moral with the internal sense of correstness. One can, in any given case, be ethical without being moral.


In the secular case, they are rules of civilized behavior (the Buddist view as well): they are the generally accepted rationizations of humanists et alia for the well being of society. In religions (especially to fundamentalists who rely entirely on ancient writings purported to come from their chosen God) they are fixed rules of conduct established by whatever priest, prophet or whoever wrote the authorized version of local tribal customs at the time of writing.

Ethics in Greek means the character or behavior of a man; the plural means manners, sadly lacking in today's society. They are rules of conduct applicable to certain certain situations and groups of humans.

(2)"...and become the basis of a man invented religion..." Since all religions are man made efforts to explain the inexplicable at the time of their adoption they will naturally be "amended whenever need arises as a situational ethic having no absolutes other than being absolutely presumptuous..."
- as indded the Jewish religion was modified by the Christian, for example.
There is nothing more presumptuous than religious dogma that assumes the absolute veracity of ancient writings.

(3)On to the main theme of this thread.

Since Watson, Crick et alia were resposible for elucidating the structure of DNA, are they therefore in any way resposible for the development of gene altered bacteria? Obvious BS. Then who is? Or are the researchers into nuclear structure in the 1930s in any resposible for the blast over Hiroshima? If a scientist hides his original discoveries you can bet someone else in the field will not and get the credit. Getting a bit closer to those responsible, are the applied scientists (engineers) who use these discoveries morally responsible? The management, or the politicians guiding or employing them? Or, in the case of deadly weapons, is it the military, GI Joe or his superiors?

I worked for DOD contractors (and MOD in the UK) for a good part of my career. I regarded this work as a useful part of the effort in the defense of the realm and never had any moral qualms about the ultimate use of such weapon or intelligence gathering systems. Enemies were engaged in the same pursuit - should we turn the other cheek? I leave the business of selecting enemies to the politicians.

Man evolved just one thing superior to all mammals. A brain. Without it he is a ridiculous bipedal animal (these can sometimes be seen on our local beaches!). If he does not use it he is nothing more than an ox behind a plough. And he is an ox behind a plough if he accepts, without reason, the precepts of antique prophets without thinking. He is then brainwashed, usually by his elders. Of course, the 'born again' faction also sufferd a delusion due to auto-suggestion implanted by some charismatic preacher, ill interpreted. Or maybe they are slightly psychotic, hearing non-existent voice of angels and speaking with the deity on some private line - a circuit within their brains.

Religion does serves a purpose if it is a comfort to the perplexed as Maimonides wrote. A priest can be as helpful as a psychiatrist.

Yet all teaching is actually brainwahing - if it gets rid of the dross or accumulated lumber of the mind and supplies clarity, it is worthwhile. Otherwise it is regression.

Religion is a product of ancient man's fear of the unknown. As time passes, parts of the unknown become known: as St. Paul said: "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." Science and knowledge cleans off the dirt and permits us to view the world as it is, not as
some visionary or prophet imagines it.


Rosco seems to imply that if we do not believe in his version of creation and redmption, etc., we have no souls. The soul, like everything else, is a development of the personality. New borns have none - mere instinctive survival is their mode - but not for long. Within a week the stimulus of the enviroment and especially the fellow humans around causes it to begin to develop its own soul or psyche. In time the child picks up its morals from its parents and associates. He models himself on them. Today's parenting in my mind lacks many things in the frantic materialstic quest for goods or even gaining the simple requirements for life. Thank god I have lived for the most part in a kinder if not gentler time.

All have souls, Rosco, be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Taoist, Atheist, Agnostic or what have you. And to all I send Season's Greetings, and may they celebrate in their own chosen way.

Der Alte



IrC - 23-12-2011 at 14:35

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
To discover what level of understanding you have achieved explain why Styrofoam is an important component in a multi stage radiation implosion device of Teller-Ulam design.

Oh yeah, asking a question, the answer to which is available to anyone with an internet connection, is real fucking significant . . .
Top of the class, IrC?



Yet you failed to answer it. In fact I do not see any relevant scientific information you have ever added to this site. All I see is the endless sucking of every person in every thread you respond to into an ever devolving topic wrecking petty fight of words. I am not going to further your goals any longer.

IrC - 23-12-2011 at 15:24

Quote: Originally posted by quicksilver  
Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
I would say the innocent most at risk, and those most able to judge. This eliminates all politicians right off the bat.



Yes, ideally.

But what about a "domino" chain of events? Example:
Methods are devised to cure a great many illnesses; yet the world cannot support a population that would result. Does anyone have the right to withhold a cure for disease?

On another level:
-=Merry Christmas=-

drive safe!

[Edited on 23-12-2011 by quicksilver]


While I do not like double posting I did not want to taint this topic with the reply to the 'special needs' member.

I would have to say no they do not have the right to play creator. Everyone should always do what is right. They did not add to the population since the ill person was already here. You are connecting two different things. If there are too many grasshoppers they eat all the grass. Or whatever it is they eat. Problem solved. Nature has a way of running things quite well if left alone. There is no moral ambiguity as to right and wrong. If a thing is something you do not want done to you then do not do it to someone else. Quite simply the golden rule. The ill person who through age and knowledge gained may be doing more good for others than 50 healthy young people. It could be an old Einstein writing books from their death bed adding to the enlightenment of mankind. I value this one person far more than ten thousand healthy 20 year old gang bangers out robbing and murdering the innocent for drug money and/or fun. Quality is of more value to me than quantity. One ill person of quality is of greater value to me than any number of the gang bangers. Or I would rather be in a world of kind sick people than one full of healthy evil maniacs. So maybe part of the answer to your question includes a judgment of each individual based upon their past actions. Yet this seems to be getting back to playing creator so I suppose your question is actually very complex and not easy to answer.

Why should the single ill person who has no family be worth less than the healthy person who has 14 kids and refuses to stop breeding if the question is about simple numbers and over population? If I were a pure humanitarian I would make the cure and spend the profit on advertising for birth control if numbers was my worry. The way I see it refusing to make the cure is playing God while weaponizing the flu is playing the devil and I do not think we have the right to play either. If North Korea was not spending their wealth on weapons of war, but instead spending it on crop growing and other needs of the people there would be no starvation in prison camps going on over there.

Likewise the same is true for every other nation. Look at the land area of the arctic regions. What if all the money invested in war was invested in nuclear power and greenhouses. Enough food to feed twice the current population. As to this number getting out of control at some point survival kicks in and the world will be forced to take measures to control the increase. Such as allowing a family only so many children. This may be in opposition to values in free nations such as in the west yet at some point a rethink will have to be done to gain control. What I actually see looking at the world is amazingly it is mostly the un-free nations which seem to have out of control population growth. Don't ask me to explain why but there it is for whatever reason.

I really cannot say what the true morally correct answer to your question is other than I stay with my first thought, make the cure and let nature take care of itself. The ill have the same right to live as the healthy and if numbers is the problem then stop making them.

Yes, Merry Christmas.

Rosco Bodine - 23-12-2011 at 15:25

@Der Alte The standard for what is survivable or not at a given time may not be absolute but it is close enough. You are operating on the assumption that rationalizations of men, that is human thinking is the origin for all ideology.
There is historical commentary that such is not the case.
Religion is not something which I believe was simply dreamt up by humans in order to please whatever imaginary gods were likewise just dreamt up by ancient humans.

So instead....what if religion is a product of ancient man's reckoning not at all with fear of the unknown, but rather a rational response to the demonstrable and decisive certainty of what was absolutely clearly and universally known? Why do you rule out such a possibility? It would seem that you have decided that ancient humans were all hysterics whose responses were irrational superstitious reaction to mass delusion induced by the trickery and magic of shamans and wizards who held everyone in awe. Is it really so far fetched that in the alternative just occasionally a classroom of stone age students may be graced by the appearance of their teacher? And it would seem your view of modern Christendom is an extension in tradition of what you think is simply a modernized form of the origin in ancient tribal superstitions which then had no factual basis. I don't believe that mere illusions and superstitions are nearly so enduring as your theory would suppose.

And Paul was speaking of his own experience with an increasingly clear view and understanding of God through spiritual growth and trust ......Paul was not saying that as a child he believed in God but now he was an older and wiser man he would be necessarily putting aside such childish things as faith. Actually, Paul had become a Christian after he became a grown man, following his personal experience with meeting God in person while on the road from Jerusalem to Damascus and being struck blind at the meeting......if you believe Pauls own account. Before that educational meeting, Paul was formerly Saul a Roman citizen who was a persecutor of Christians, the equivalent of a "witch hunter" who actively hunted and killed Christians, including the martyr Stephen, until Paul met in person the risen Christ who issued him the new name Paul and different orders.

There is no moral equivalency between souls and religions when there is one redeemer, that singularity is decisive as a spiritual genetic marker for who is family and who is not. Sure it may be a kinder gentler philosophy to indulge the idea that salvation is more "diversified" and tolerant of differing beliefs, but there really isn't any authority as basis for such belief which is a non Christian concept. Quite explicitly Jesus stated exclusive status was His alone.

There is no having things both ways about this kind of definitive subject.

From the BBC, the longest running broadcast program on earth, ....... Songs of Praise

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5YIZQ6bgY Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1mMcZO3xa4 Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq1RK2BH-AQ Part 3

[Edited on 24-12-2011 by Rosco Bodine]

Ephoton - 23-12-2011 at 18:29

one example of a human who has ment to have lived beyond 200 years of age is Li Ching Yuen.

it was documented in the chinese archives through his military service that he reached 256.
he was a true chinese master of martial arts and qigong "for thouse who dont know qigong is a breathing
meditational exercise thats focus is on chi movement hence the name chi mastery :)"

he has also been stated to live a meer 197 beating the longest living person in the west Jeanne Calment
who reached a ripe old age of 122 and was from the frog land of france.

now having had lung damage my self from using aqua regia and now studing a course in instructing wing chun
and qigong I would have to say that qigong will extend some ones life.

if it will reach 256 is another thing all together and this is under hot debate in some circles as is stated on
the wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ching-Yuen

it was said that Mr Li died when he came down from his "mountain" to visit the current emperor and recive
a tribute to his age. the enviroment he came back too effected his health so badly that he could not recover.

Now if I start using qigong in any kind of religous group "which I am not normaly part of but hey im open minded
and kind to those who burnt my past belivers" they instantly call it witch craft and tell me to stop or leave.
Especially when I explain how to go about practicing it which is normally asked. Which trust me is only the
tip of the iceberg as far as what our wonderfull gifts can intail.

I can understand that some one may feel that buy saving ones soul that they are doing the right thing.

But what if ......
one was to fall pray to an mass orchastrated drama that was based on some dude Akhenaten becouse
polythasim was to hard to dictate too.

truly if I were a leader I would probably use history to learn how to run the people I am responsible for
rather than try and let the people run me.

What if I could tell you there is a true way to extend your life and explain why it works. I could even
in a short period of time teach you and give you an Austudy grant wail showing you the "ropes"

Would you look around the corner or would your beliefe in monothaistic system hold you back from progression.

What if by learning the truth of Tao and Chi as far as we can "prove it" today would show you the path to your
spirit and "maby" give you the strenght to be strong enough to continue this spirit after death.

Would I then under your system be responsible for saving "YOUR SOUL"

Naaa it dont work that way dude.

something given something lost something stolen something tossed.

YA GOT TA EARN IT BROTHER.

and even then sometimes were just not strong enough.

DerAlte - 23-12-2011 at 19:21

Rosco wrote:
Quote:
There is no having things both ways about this kind of definitive subject.

Newton wrote:
Quote:
Quicquid enim ex Phænomenis non deducitur, Hypothesis vocanda est; et Hypotheses seu Metaphysicæ, seu Physicæ, seu Qualitatum occultarum, seu Mechanicæ, in Philosophia Experimentali locum non habent.


Peace, Bro, and the compliments of the season.

Der Alte

hissingnoise - 24-12-2011 at 02:44

Quote:
To discover what level of understanding you have achieved explain why Styrofoam is an important component in a multi stage radiation implosion device of Teller-Ulam design.
Quote:

Oh yeah, asking a question, the answer to which is available to anyone with an internet connection, is real fucking significant . . .
Top of the class, IrC?
Quote:

Yet you failed to answer it.

Choosing not to bother with your juvenile question is hardly failure to provide any answer (there are more than one, you know?), but in connection with your question, will you tell us if you've actually swallowed the energy step-down hypothesis?

Rosco Bodine - 24-12-2011 at 11:57

Quote:
There are two ways of acquiring knowledge, one through reason, the other by experiment. Argument reaches a conclusion and compels us to admit it, but it neither makes us certain nor so annihilates doubt that the mind rests calm in the intuition of truth, unless it finds this certitude by way of experience. Thus many have arguments toward attainable facts, but because they have not experienced them, they overlook them and neither avoid a harmful nor follow a beneficial course. Even if a man that has never seen fire, proves by good reasoning that fire burns, and devours and destroys things, nevertheless the mind of one hearing his arguments would never be convinced, nor would he avoid fire until he puts his hand or some combustible thing into it in order to prove by experiment what the argument taught. But after the fact of combustion is experienced, the mind is satisfied and lies calm in the certainty of truth. Hence argument is not enough, but experience is. Roger Bacon, On Experimental Science, 1268


http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/bacon2.asp

Maybe the portrait of Friar Bacon should also have graced Einstein's wall. But I suppose when Einstein was choosing scientists of note, there was sensibility about not having too many portraits of scholarly Christians on the wall, and Maxwell was sufficient :P

Bacon in the article mentions Pliny (the elder) author of a 160 volume encyclopedia which was the "World Book" of its day or a sort of "Encyclopedia Roma" if you will. Of course with any mention of Pliny is sometimes an elder/younger - uncle/nephew confusion possible, so for convenience in making distinction here is more interesting reading in bios of both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Elder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger

As for the gift of life offered by Jesus Christ, consider
this all you doubters about that bargain, consider now the
economics thereof. For when the Almighty gives unto
the world of humankind a Christmas gift of love,
and for reason of love alone ....the giver has already paid the cost for the gift, and therefore to you the price is right in the receiving of what it is yours as a gift of love for free.

Sometimes it is good to fear the Greeks when bearing gifts ......but not always :D

Merry Christmas


hissingnoise - 25-12-2011 at 03:04

Quote:
Sometimes it is good to fear the Greeks when bearing gifts ......
Merry Christmas.

Yes, it was a lovelt present, and so lifelike and unexpected!
It must have taken tns of wood to make such a fine horse thing - is it presume its solid timber, or perhaps it's hollow inside . . .
Shhh! I thought I heard a hissingnoise coming from it.
Cheers Everyone, and thanks for all the fun.

Oh, It' my tinnittis...




[Edited on 25-12-2011 by hissingnoise]

[Edited on 25-12-2011 by hissingnoise]

[Edited on 25-12-2011 by hissingnoise]

MagicJigPipe - 25-12-2011 at 14:10

Yes, Rosco, approximately 2000 years ago on this day, God sacrificed himself to please himself and to offer atonement to humanity for sins committed by people he created. Why he didn't just forgive all sins without the theatrics is obviously beyond our meager ability to comprehend things. Just like a dog can't understand that it can't learn English, we don't understand that we can't understand God's master plan. Therefore, the best thing to do is just to admit that we can't understand it and just believe it despite the evidence (i.e. on faith).

Furthermore, we should arbitrarily assume that Christianity is the correct one because it says so in its holy book. All the other religions are wrong because... well, because whatever society that we have been brought up in's religion is right. Except for all those other ones because... well, I can't even make a satirical argument that makes sense because it's so nonsensical.

It's utterly impossible that people wrote a book about mystical beings that isn't a factual account of what really happened. Except for those thousands of other times...

Additionally, it's impossible to be good without religion despite the fact that most crimes are committed by a disproportionate number of religious people versus non-religious. That statistic doesn't count because it goes against what I believe.

And finally, the world is flat. There's nothing you can say to me to convince me that it isn't. Anyone who believes otherwise is a spiritually-devoid idiot who is going to burn for eternity in hell.

Merry Christmas!

(And I mean that last part)

IrC - 25-12-2011 at 18:49

A - Could you take your God VS No God fight somewhere else

B - "we don't understand that we can't understand God's master plan"

Maybe God thinks people are so full of it they do not deserve to know His plan.

Ephoton - 26-12-2011 at 16:18

oh come on the man has writen so many posts on explosives and poisons its damb impossible for him
not to belive int he BIG BANG :)

I think this is just another bomb to him. he loves to see things blow up and well every year at the same
time SM blows up and Rosco just sits there laughing his arse off.

got to hand it to him he is good at it.

he is probably a buddist but well read in christian ways :)

hissingnoise - 27-12-2011 at 04:39

Quote:
Just like a dog can't understand that it can't learn English . . .

- MJP, I must demur at this point!

Rosco Bodine - 3-2-2012 at 22:27

Quote: Originally posted by Ephoton  


(snip).... every year at the same
time SM blows up and Rosco just sits there laughing his arse off.

got to hand it to him he is good at it.


...not laughing ....somewhat dismayed, and not really surprised at the world
even at Christmas being and acting the part of being the broken and imperfect
world that the world is. The world is indeed a place where the heathen rage
and the people imagine a vain thing .....
there's nothing new under the sun in that same thing observed millennia ago
which continues, though not without a continual challenge by good authority.
Quote:

he is probably a buddist but well read in christian ways :)


Baptist actually ....for more than sixty years

The first clip is a look inside a Baptist church, the Billy Graham Chapel in North Carolina
followed by some music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=w7vZ-hP... Nothing But The Blood

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTBBKRc24yE I Won’t Have To Worry Anymore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2MvnXnR9gU Just Over Yonder

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpgm1wqdp5o Will Someone Be Waiting For Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JoAxg5L9a0 Beyond The Sunset For Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOytmkPzhLo Redeemed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvagoD8T0u4 The Sweet By And By

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9oW91Iv8D8 Are You Washed In The Blood Of The Lamb

Mennonites, Amish, and Baptists are fundamentally the same

If one was to compare the struggles of this world to the movie trilogy lord of the rings .....
we are something like the elves

Greetings Frodo .......Don't miss the boat.

[Edited on 4-2-2012 by Rosco Bodine]

Aperturescience27 - 15-4-2012 at 15:21

The reason they created the virus is because they wanted to know whether it was likely that the virus could mutate naturally into an easily-transmissible strain (apparently it is very likely), and so they could know, if they detected that strain, that they should quarantine it, and what kind of vaccine they would need to fight it. It is important to know these things. However, I don't think the knowledge should be available to the public, because obviously people could make the strain as a bioweapon. Keep in mind though that you would have to be pretty insane to want to destroy the ENTIRE human race (though some people certainly are that insane).