Avian Flu Researcher Plans to Defy Dutch Ban On Publishing Paper 118
scibri writes "Ron Fouchier, one of the researchers involved in the controversy over whether to publish research on mutant versions of H5N1 bird flu, has said he plans to submit his paper to Science without applying for an export control license as demanded by the Dutch government. Failing to get the license means he could face penalties including up to six years in prison. Whether the paper falls under export-control laws is unclear. The Netherlands implements European Union (EU) legislation on export controls, which require an export permit for 'dual-use' materials and information — those that could have both legitimate and malicious uses — including those relating to dangerous pathogens. But the EU law allows an exception for 'basic scientific research' that is 'not primarily directed towards a specific practical aim or objective,' which Fouchier says should cover his work."
Good for him (Score:3, Insightful)
I salute him for risking prison, he's doing the right thing. Censorship is evil, research perhaps most of all.
Agreed (Score:2, Insightful)
Government will try to paint a picture where the consequences of free association are worse than the consequences of oppression (yes, I said oppression) -- but those of us who think for ourselves already know the truth.
I'm guessing this respectable man (the scientist) thinks for himself. We need more of his type in this world, and less of the government type. MUCH less of the government type.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And if a terrorist group uses that research to kill thousands or millions? Will you still feel its justified?
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
And if a terrorist group uses that research to kill thousands or millions? Will you still feel its justified?
Do you hold the Wright Brothers, Dr Hans Von Ohain and Sir Frank Whittle responsible for 9/11?
Re:Good for him (Score:4, Funny)
He would, but he probably doesn't know who they are.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Good for him (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The invention of flight had obvious benefits to the scientific community and the general population. Mutating a virus to be more deadly isn't quite the same. Although research could evolve from it that proves to be beneficial, the immediate result of this research is not. This is also potentially far more deadly than a plane flying into a building. It could have global consequences if misused with the potential to kill far more than 9/11.
They are not the same.
Re: (Score:3)
What is the immediate result of having some crazy guy flying around your town in his contraption?
Re: (Score:2)
He would probably hold Elisha Otis, Daniel Burnham, and John Root responsible too, and would be more than willing to fly somewhere and meet in a tall building to explain why he thinks they all should be exhumed, tried, shot, and reburied.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
And if said virus killed your family? It's easy to make off the cuff statements that 'censorship' is bad, when researchers also have a responsibility to think of the ramifications of their research.
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
And if said virus killed your family?
I will never take anyone seriously who brings up the possibility of personal loss in a discussion like this. That is an argument that can be used in many contexts, to argue both sides of the issue. It is non-informative, and intellectually dishonest. Stop it.
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't get much more personal if the consequences had such real world ramifications. Researchers need to be responsible with research. There will always be a human element that should be considered. As I said, it's easy to make off he cuff decisions without looking at the potential risks or taking responsibility. I think it's irresponsible to do so until they have a vaccine.
Re: (Score:2)
What if your wife made that argument? (Score:2)
Would you still be so "intellectually honest"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then at least they didn't die in abject fear of an unlikely bogeyman.
And my daughter wouldn't have her tits groped on the off chance that the TSA agent will feel something other than her tits.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)
And if said virus killed your family? It's easy to make off the cuff statements that 'censorship' is bad, when researchers also have a responsibility to think of the ramifications of their research.
Wrong question.
I'd be much, much more concerned if the scientists will discover a working vaccine before this mutation happens in the wild, and to that end, SCIENCE needs to be done. Suppression of research is clearly harmful to this goal. So, I'd be asking the question: "And if said virus, having mutated in wild, killed your family, and the vaccine wasn't ready in time thanks to idiots who wanted to make it harder to discover with their security theater?"
And honestly, the way I see it, the harmful info is already out there. If the terrorists have a grasp of biology, and the resources at the level they would be able to actually do these things, the information that H5N1 can actually mutate into something this dangerous is enough. Suppressing this research is doing nothing else but letting the bad guys have all the weapons.
Re: (Score:1)
Great post. Security through obscurity has NEVER worked.
Re: (Score:2)
Security through obscurity has NEVER worked
If that's such a bad practice, show me an organization that publishes all their internal IP addresses and network infrastructure to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, exactly. Anyone with access to the right equipment can now figure out how to do this, paper published or not. What would be really clever is to change a key aspect in the news reports to lead these bio-terrorists down the wrong path.
Re: (Score:2)
"And if said virus, having mutated in wild, killed your family, and the vaccine wasn't ready in time thanks to idiots who wanted to make it harder to discover with their security theater?"
We can't even figure out a vaccine effective against all strains of the seasonal flu. What makes you think that the strain that the researchers developed is going to be the same strain that occurs in nature?
If the terrorists have a grasp of biology, and the resources at the level they would be able to actually do these things
Its not the smart terrorists that are of concern. I don't think groups like the Taliban, Al Qaida, etc would be crazy enough to do something like this. Its the at home ecoterrorist or crazy Christian that wants to start the second coming of Christ that scares me. This type of research previously required
Re: (Score:2)
And if said virus killed your family?
And if said car killed your family?
And if said electricity killed your family?
And if said gunpowder killed your family?
And if said theory of relativity killed your family?
I'm not sure you've considered the logical extension of your argument...
Re: (Score:2)
My aunt fell to her death....
DAMN YOOOUUUU NEWTON! /shakes fist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good for him (Score:4, Insightful)
"And if a terrorist group uses that research to kill thousands or millions? Will you still feel its justified?"
Fuck you and everyone like you.
Yes it's justified.
The benefits of scientific exchange by studying contagions outweigh whatever risks there are due to mythical terrorists behind every tree. Terrorists, I must add, who set fire to their shoes and underwear. We're not exactly talking about fucking genius. If they thought for one fucking second about what they were doing, they wouldn't try to fucking blow themselves up, would they?
People like you would drag us back to the fucking dark ages because "technology can be used by terrorists" and there would be no fucking benefit to anyone except your fucking megalomania.
There are far easier and effective ways of killing people than trying to weaponize a virus. Take your "doctor evil" bad movie script, print it out until it is all sharp corners, and shove it up your ass.
Go confiscate someone else's nail clippers.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
There are far easier and effective ways of killing people than trying to weaponize a virus
really? how is it far easier to kill millions of people than to weaponize a deadly and highly contagious virus?
Re: (Score:2)
really? how is it far easier to kill millions of people than to weaponize a deadly and highly contagious virus?
Start a religion, or use one effectively.
Thank God the world is run by adults (Score:2)
and not self-righteous slashdot posters.
BTW: The governments involved know a thing or two about science. They've sponsored >90% of the science done in the world. You know where all those vaccines come from? government labs. There are thousands of people who work their asses off everyday in an endless war against disease. Those people *will* have access to any and all information necessary to do their jobs, because if they don't then people die. But those people also understand that you need to keep the c
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I pity you for the ignorant belief that people that hold extremist views are in any way less intelligent or capable than supposedly-non-political research scientists.
Re: (Score:3)
And if a terrorist group uses that research to kill thousands or millions? Will you still feel its justified?
First, it's government of the "developed world" that go most of the killing (or turn blind eye when their 'strategic allies' do it). Not the terrorists.
Second, do you hold inventors of gun powder responsible for deaths of thousands or millions?
I am more scared of governments than terrorists. I really am.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, the terrorists won't know what to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on the fence on this one. On one hand, I'm worried about the technology and knowledge to manufacture bio-weapons falling into the wrong hands. Nuclear research is one thing, as the cost barrier to entry is pretty high, even if you have the blueprints. But biological/chemical stuff is cheap. Nevertheless, knowledge will eventually spread, so blocking it is just buying time. My main support of Fouchier is that the whole dual use export control system is all too often used as a tool for economic or market
Re: (Score:2)
>But biological/chemical stuff is cheap.
No, it's not. It's not because it's bloody difficult to get it to work effectively.
It's not like walking into Walgreens and walking out with the ingredients for meth.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
But it is cheap compared to a nuclear weapons program. A couple of smart & fanatical people with a modest payroll can go a long way. I have read scenarios (sorry, can’t cite them off the top of my head) that one could do really interesting stuff with 100k worth of equipment and supplies. 500k is well within the range of smaller states and larger criminal organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
Right. All terrorists are uneducated morons. You just keep believing that and you'll sleep better at night.
Why are so many terrorists engineers? [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They're not very good engineers are they?
I know of a civil engineer with a PE stamp and the whole nine yards, and while he can calculate the intersection of two logarithmic curves in his head, he doesn't have a whole lot of mechanical or common sense. And lawd knows he's impervious to practical advice.
Engineers who decide to go terrorist don't have a lot of common sense as explained in the article.
You need both common and mechanical sense to implement your evil plans. Otherwise you wind up setting your (o
Re: (Score:2)
And you've been reading conspiracy websites if that's what you've been reading.
It is so far more difficult to weaponize Anthrax without the necessary knowledge *and* equipment that you're far better off trying to figure out, for example, how to synthesize certain organic compounds that cost 18-20 dollars/gram that only reveal themselves when it's too late and there's no trail to follow like with polonium, but have nearly as horrific effects on the human body.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
It's not difficult to make a virus.
Compared to other things it is. Far more complicated. It's a lot more complicated than flying planes into buildings.
We're talking about people, who when they go through with their evil plans since then, light their shoes and underwear on fire. For these kinds of people, weaponizing a virus may as well have the same likelihood as you building a *successful* moon rocket in your back yard.
>ultra liberal
Yeah, I know which side of the street you came from. Go back to your
Re: (Score:2)
One issue... Why do we only think of 9/11 and shoe bombers when we think of terrorists?
Does anyone remember Aum Shirikyo and the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo? Just because most modern terrorists aren't sophisticated, doesn't mean that ALL of them aren't or won't be.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against your basic point; I feel not releasing this information would be more irresponsible than releasing it. To be free and open we must take risks. To have science and progress we must be free and open.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone remember Aum Shirikyo and the Sarin gas attacks in Tokyo?
I do and the following scenario is related. I hinted at something in my other posts.
1. Plant sprayer
2. A certain chemical, that is relatively inexpensive and easy to synthesize (as far as dangerous chemicals go) that killed a researcher because a droplet penetrated her glove and caused her to die a horrific death.
3. An enclosed area
4. A salad bar
5. A rock concert
6. Anywhere people might gather.
7. and there is nothing you can do to
About time (Score:2)
I'm amazed that it's taken this long for someone to do the right thing... and that the paper didn't end up on Wikileaks or similar a couple days after this controversy started.
Is it even an export? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic Apple doesn't import any of their hardware into the US. After all, it's a US company paying the bills right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that the grant supporting the research came from the US so submission for publication in a US journal is pretty normal. I got some telescope time on a UK telescope and published in a UK journal as a result.
I don't think that normally holds. I published in US and EU journals while on a UK grant and will likely publish in both now I am on a US grant - the location of the journal rarely factors into where I publish, only the suitability of the subject matter and the reputation. Location only matters for conferences, and then it's a question of whether my interest in the conference plus my interest in visiting the location is greater than the effort involved in going there and justifying the expenses.
It is hard to say I was exporting science to the UK when they built the telescope and instrument I used
Would it
Re: (Score:2)
Licenses on dual use? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wouldn't that be most technology out there?
I mean, take anything and there's always a malicious use for it. A car can serve as transportation for someone (good), or as a quick getaway after committing a crime (bad).
The computer can be used to educate and communicate, or to create misery for others and steal (real cybercrime here). And that doesn't even involve the murkiness of copyright.
A camera can be used to document a crime, or to commit one (e.g., pedophillia creation).
A book can be used to educate, inform or provide entertainment, or to spread ugly rumors and how to make say, bombs to kill people.
Really - where's the line? This research can be used to spur new advances in medicine, or be used to create a mass plague.
Practically everything has a malicious use to it.
Re: (Score:2)
"I mean, take anything and there's always a malicious use for it"
The keyboard to an old IBM 5150 can be used to bludgeon someone to death.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
The keyboard to an old IBM 5150 can be used to bludgeon someone to death.
Pics or it didn't happen!
Re: (Score:2)
Practically everything has a malicious use to it.
Which is perhaps why they wrote the law like that.
Re: (Score:1)
Probably more than to not shot you.
Developing a shot (Score:2)
Develop vaccines (Score:2)
The paper shows a logical, possible, way that the virus could mutate in the wild.
Vaccines take a long time to develop, test, and manufacture, so you want to get ahead of the curve. Which means you want to do some ground work with your enemy. What can it do? How can it evolve, etc. Now we know.
Isn't everything "dual use"? (Score:2)
This "dual use" clause is scrary and definitely highly ambiguous.
Where to put the line? Before you know it we can't export iron! After all you can make cars with it, but also guns. Or trucks: can be used for transporting both civilian or military goods. Or mobile phones: aren't they used to set off bombs?
And this example of raw materials is not far fetched, it is from direct personal experience: I'm in the business of trading plastic recycling materials out of Europe, and currently we basically can not ship
Limited distribution (Score:4, Interesting)
" ... he plans to submit his paper to Science ... "
Where it will be hidden behind a paywall
Re: (Score:2)
Where it will be hidden behind a paywall
...for the next 70 years or so. Plenty of time for a cure to be found! Win-win!
On a serious note: why not on PLoS ONE? Impact factor of ~10 not good enough for him?
No. 1 Killer Export (Score:2)
he will SUBMIT his MANUSCRIPT to Science ... (Score:2)
nowhere is it stated that the MS will pass peer review and be accepted.
As a PI, I know that submission does NOT equal public dissemination, not by a long shot.
Actually, I consider this stupid (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The truth is, that AQ or other terrorists, are very likely to use Avian flu in an attack. The reason is that it can easily be converted to a weapon and then run around and spread it all through the west. And yes, AQ DOES know this.
Then they should also know that the virus would not be confined to the West, and would rampage through their homes as well. The only thing that would be confined to the West would be the vaccines. And while the terrorists get plenty of stupid and gullible people to do their work, the people in charge (usually) aren't so suicidal as to attack with biological weapons. IANABWE, so I don't know if this would be beyond the capability of a 'lone wolf' type of attacker.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, as to confining it to the west, well, they would not care about that. They attack Chi
"He is an idiot" (Score:2)
I just can repeat what our boss (who is quite high in the scientific establishment in States) said about this guy.
"He is an idiot".
did S. King co-author? (Score:1)
Isn't this the prequel to 'The Stand'? Folks create nasty super bug for research, then it gets loose. I doubt this would rise to the level of a 'Captain Tripps', but it sounds like it could be nasty.
I'd be more worried about some dumb bastard making a version of smallpox that acts like the GM'd Australian mousepox. 100% lethal in unvaccinated population and around 50% lethal in the vaccinated one.
Good for him (Score:2)
Knowledge should not be locked up in some government office but free to the world.
Re:Sounds like a good STORY for a bioweapon releas (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like the guy is saying,
"Tomorrow at 8:00AM I'm going to rob the First PanNational Bank of Metropolis and there's nothing you coppers can do to stop me."
Rather, he is saying,
"I am going to submit my scientific research to a well respected journal in my field. I do not consider that an illegal act. I do however understand that my research is considered dangerous by some, so I want to appear to be the reasonable person in this situation."
Re:Sounds like a good STORY for a bioweapon releas (Score:4, Interesting)
So for one... terrorists for sure won't try to publish their research.
And second, he probably has spent a good amount of time researching to be scooped by another researcher in another country that may not have the "exporting" issue.
Still, that doesn't mean is going to be published, and peer-reviewing will be in place, very likely if some consider is very interesting it will be published. Unless other hands wave at the paper and never gets published. (Yes, submitting doesn't mean publishing)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, why the fuck would he announce beforehand that he is planning on doing something illegal. If he was so hell-bent on releasing the info, wouldn't he be concerned that forewarning the authorities might cause them to act first and prevent the release?
This story does not add up.
well, if the authorities stop him from releasing the information, it's not his fault, not his choice to bow down before vague pressure to not publish - then at least there would be court about it, if it's legal and where such research could be done and who can do it and which scientists end up with gagging orders for what reasons.
Civil Disobedience (Score:4, Insightful)
I am reading this not as a narrow legal dodge (it falls outside the laws) but as a broad claim of researching being able to freely publish scientific data without prior censorship, and thus a campaign of Civil Disobedience.
The point of Civil Disobedience is not to break unjust laws, it’s to change them. Read up on the theorist of your choice, but I am picking Gandhi’s Salt March. The idea is to state your case on why you think your action is just, announce you are doing it, then do it. The authorities then must public arrest you. Do it long enough, loud enough and the capricious law will crumble.
Anonymous Pirates take note. If you think IP laws should change (which I do), stand up and be counted, just don’t download the latest whatever. If you don’t do what you do with pride, people will just assume you are cheap unemployed people ripping off starving artistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Publish it on hundreds of Internet sites anonymously.
Re:Sounds like a good STORY for a bioweapon releas (Score:4, Insightful)
"rogue scientist unwittingly gives the terrorists their dream weapon"
Terrorists generally aren't too adept at molecular biology. Knowing the DNA sequence does not mean you'd be able to will it together in a functional virus. I'm a molecular biologist, and I wouldn't know where to start making this flu. Terrorists aren't even that advanced with conventional bombs. The 9/11 attacks, they didn't even actually HAVE a bomb, they just had box cutters and a promise that they did have a bomb.
While some government bent on censoring the internet obviously wouldn't care about the truth and might use it as an excuse anyway, it's also true that voters aren't too concerned about censoring the net anyway.
Why worry about science as an excuse, when saying "Child porn!" is a more effective cover for taking away free speech anyway?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"everyone must take compulsory vaccine to avoid pandemic"
"those refusing will be held in 'quaranteen'"
Everybody else will become autistic.
Re: (Score:1)
"everyone must take compulsory vaccine to avoid pandemic"
"those refusing will be held in 'quaranteen'"
Everybody else will become autistic.
So long as the autistic folks remember to let everyone else out, then those who refused to take said vaccine will instantly conquer the world!
Of course, most of the fuss over (not) taking vaccines is simple hysteria (with a side of conspiracy theories), but since a few vaccines have actually caused problems in the past (epilepsy in a person I know, for example), there's no telling which part of this hysteria (if any) is justified, today. Ugh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why everyone assumes this research is suddenly dangerous just because it exists. I find one of three scenarios likely.
1. The "terrorists" wouldn't understand the research and, therefore, wouldn't be able to do anything with it. So, no harm done and very little risk. Continue the research and our overall understanding.
2. The 'terrorists" have the people they need in their fold which can understand and do something with this research. Doesn't it stand to reason, then, that these same "terr
Re: (Score:1)
Fuck you. Golden Earring rocks!
Re: (Score:2)
And fuck the Americans too?
Initially the Dutch government had no problems with the scientists publishing their research.
It was the US government didn't want the paper to be published and they somehow made the Dutch government take the same stance on the issue.
(In Dutch) Article from University of Wageningen about the issue [www.wur.nl]