The war continues . . .

The war against science, that is. Waged by followers of certain religious and political ideologies. Aided and abetted by a populace which has little or no interest in what science is or how it works – but likes to take sides anyhow, regardless of their lack of information on the many issues.

Here's a good, brief summary of the current state of play, from Earle Holland:

The war continues . . .

Ultimately, science is an easy target. Inherent in its practice is its openness to critiques. The “facts” of science will always be corrected, changed, modified, enhanced and altered over time as our understanding improves. Opponents of science recognize this and use it to their advantage.

Researchers and research institutions need to understand this sad truth, and prepare accordingly.

If you need any more evidence about this, just read some of the comments to his post. What's amazing to me is that people who have the same uninformed, radio-talk-show-level opinions on the hot-button issues also have the time to read and comment on a blog like Earle's, but (apparently) not enough time to actually learn some of the relevant science.

Also be sure to have a look at this posting at The Scientist's community BBS, McCain twitters against science. Nonsense from a failed political candidate who has been ignorant about most issues involving science, and much else besides. Does he believe his own nonsense? Silly question. He demonstrated in his campaign failing memory of his own positions on various issues, or even regarding how many homes he owns. But he does know what his political party's base wants to hear...

Biowar for Dummies

So, I was just saying here a few days ago how easy it is now to design your own genes with easily available tools. Turns out that not only can you design genes, but it's much easier than I supposed to put them into a real live organism... for good or evil purposes.

Paul Boutin explains pretty clearly on his blog all that he recently learned about this.

Anthrax. Smallpox. Ebola. For thriller writers and policy crusaders, biological warfare was a standard what-if scenario long before anyone mailed anthrax to government and media offices in 2001. Pentagon war games like Dark Winter, held just before 9/11, and this year's Atlantic Storm suggested that terrorists could unleash germs with the killing power of a nuclear weapon.

Scientists, though, have always been skeptical. Only massive, state-sponsored programs—not terrorist cells or lone kooks—pose a plausible threat, they say. As the head of the Federation of American Scientists working group on bioweapons put it in a 2002 Los Angeles Times op-ed: "A significant bioterror attack today would require the support of a national program to succeed."

Or not. A few months ago, Roger Brent, a geneticist who runs a California biotech firm, sent me an unpublished paper in which he wrote that genetically engineered bioweapons developed by small teams are a bigger threat than suitcase nukes.

Brent is one of a growing number of researchers who believe that a bioterrorist wouldn't need a team of virologists and state funding. He says advances in DNA-hacking technology have reached the point where an evil lab assistant with the right resources could do the job.

Yeah, that's sort of worrisome, isn't it?

Tags: biological warfare