Is US disease research ethical?

Vader

Bio weapons are extremely dangerous and so develping innoculations to combat these pathagens is an ethical and responsible goal.
My problem is that the US is creating new biological agents and viruses.The US is the only country developing new Bioweapons, so who are they protecting themselves from?
The US has in the past used nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.
They have used atom bombs, depleted uranium shells,agent orange, napalm, nerve gas and many more. But the one that really worries me and is relevent to this thread is that during the Iraq-Iran conflict the US gave Saddam bioweapons which he gleefully used. Yes the US had defences against these weapons which they gave to their soldiers during the first gulf war(actually I heard they had some nasty side-effects) but the Iranians didnt.

And so one has to be sceptical when answering your question:
Q"What is the purpose of the research? "
Ans: To give america an unfair military advantage which it is not afraid to use.
Q:Is that ethical?
Ans: Well how did you feel when it was claimed Saddam had his own program for developing bioweapons?

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Bio weapons are extremely dangerous and so develping innoculations to combat these pathagens is an ethical and responsible goal.
My problem is that the US is creating new biological agents and viruses.The US is the only country developing new Bioweapons, so who are they protecting themselves from?
The US has in the past used nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.
They have used atom bombs, depleted uranium shells,agent orange, napalm, nerve gas and many more. But the one that really worries me and is relevent to this thread is that during the Iraq-Iran conflict the US gave Saddam bioweapons which he gleefully used. Yes the US had defences against these weapons which they gave to their soldiers during the first gulf war(actually I heard they had some nasty side-effects) but the Iranians didnt.

And so one has to be sceptical when answering your question:
Q"What is the purpose of the research? "
Ans: To give america an unfair military advantage which it is not afraid to use.
Q:Is that ethical?
Ans: Well how did you feel when it was claimed Saddam had his own program for developing bioweapons?

If you think the US is the only country researching bioterror altermatives, then you are dead wrong (no pun intended).

Now, how does one get to develop anit-toxins to deadly diseases that are known and probably unknown. From what has been told to me, it first must have the deadly disease itself. This is the contradiction I find interesting when researchers develop anti-toxins, while at the same time, create new the toxins. This is also where controls come into place as to make sure that those who should not have access the toxins cannot obtain them. However, the main raason from what I can tell is that it is to be prepared for any attack. If the US is prepared from other biological attacks and have the antidotes, this will deter or more likely should deter any possible attack in the future.

Now, do you even know what the Iran-Iraq war was all about, Vader. Or do you prefer a dozen ME countries with Islamic Fundamentalism in the ME? As far as "evidence" of US helping Saddam, I have yet to seen one credible piece. I have seen great stories with "details" from third parties (heresay) and cited inuendo of supposition, but no actual evidence. Newspaper articles do not count as evidence and I do not care where the articles have come from (including the US). There is evidence that the US did give Saddam satellite intel on Iranian human waves, but even from FAS and a Sept 2002 Committee Report that only speculation existed, not actual evidence. There was one in which the US would give Egypt tanks and Egypt would then in turn give Iraq tanks.

As far as the Atomic Bomb, that happened in WWII and no one really knew of its full potential. Now, do you recall the U-234 incident where Germany sent its research to Japan. But after the war ended with Germany, the U-boat commander surredered and did not complete its mission. The two Japanese officers on board committed suicide. It isl also relevant that most experts at that time believed that the arms race for nuclear weapons ended after Nagaski.

mr_angry

When it comes to technology, the question is when the new knowledge will be obtained, not IF.

Again, that is a massive over-simplification, which totally ignores the entire IDEA of ethics! Why do scientists put ethical barriers in place at all? Because its not simply a case of "when".

For example, when I signed up to the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery), I had to sign an argreement, binding myself by the ACM's code of ethics. Without this, I would not have got access to the research of other members of the ACM. If you want to be respected in computing, you join the ACM or the IEEE, and if they don't allow you to do something, you don't do it. If you want to do research into something unethical, you cannot have access to the ACM's library, and thus to the relevant information. And nobody in the ACM can research unethical practices. These barriers ensure no unethical research is carried out. Its not a case of "when".

They are imortant for obvious safety reasons but how is making a WMD, that has the potential to kill millions, in a controled enviroment anymore ethical than producing on in a secret lab in, oh lets say, Iraq?

A good point, but I'd rather not get steeped in International politics. Iraq was invaded and its government overthrown because of their supposed WMDs (which have yet to be found). Why are the US allowed to develop them? Because they wont use them in warfare? Well, lets face it, thier history hardly backs that up. The US is allowed to, simply because nobody can stop them. Iraq isn't allowed to, because the US can stop them, and don't really like them. Isn't the world a wonderful place.

As far as "evidence" of US helping Saddam, I have yet to seen one credible piece.

You obviously haven't looked very hard. Since I don't have any to hand, and time is short, can somebody give this man some "credible" links? Thank you.

As far as the Atomic Bomb, that happened in WWII and no one really knew of its full potential.

Ah, I see. 18 tests in the Nevada desert weren't enough.

Geromino

Originally posted by mr_angry4
Again, that is a massive over-simplification, which totally ignores the entire IDEA of ethics! Why do scientists put ethical barriers in place at all? Because its not simply a case of "when".

For example, when I signed up to the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery), I had to sign an argreement, binding myself by the ACM's code of ethics. Without this, I would not have got access to the research of other members of the ACM. If you want to be respected in computing, you join the ACM or the IEEE, and if they don't allow you to do something, you don't do it. If you want to do research into something unethical, you cannot have access to the ACM's library, and thus to the relevant information. And nobody in the ACM can research unethical practices. These barriers ensure no unethical research is carried out. Its not a case of "when".

You are comparing apples and oranges. When you are dealing with life sciences, biochemistry, immunology, and other sciences, you have both the potential to do harm and to do good. This is why I gave the two part question in eithics in bioterrorism as I have interpreted. Here is an example of the ethics I am referring to.

You obviously haven't looked very hard. Since I don't have any to hand, and time is short, can somebody give this man some "credible" links? Thank you.

No, I have looked and saw tons of newspaper articles web sites who claim to have the "real truth." Most have involved third party knowledge and supposition, but no hard facts.

Ah, I see. 18 tests in the Nevada desert weren't enough.

And what do you think the Soviet Union was doing? Picking daisies!

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
And what do you think the Soviet Union was doing? Picking daisies!

[OFFTOPIC]
Who invented, tested and used this technology before the Soviet Union? [/OFFTOPIC]

Capt'n Midnight

NO

You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
ie. you can't uninvent something

There is the chance of accidental release - smallpox has been responsible for at least one death and suicide since it was eradicate (but there are still stocks held for "research")

then there is the star wars argument - if one side comes up with a vaccine to a disease then they can unleash it on the other or at least not worry about reprisals. The russians rightly considered the missile shield as being a prerequisite for a suprise attact.

Don't forget in the past the US have use smallpox on indians and tested syphalis on negros in the deep south in living memory. There are also allegations of testing bacterial dispersions over San Francisco..

Anyone ever see "The Satan Bug" ?

Vader

If newspapers dont count, then what about chomsky.
Wait a minute why dont newspapers count!!!!???
I believe the Indo, BBC, primetime and Chomsky. I just spent over an hour finding a reference for somthing else so I recommend this

Vader

#### Im after repling without reading 3 posts:(
Ill get back to yous

mr_angry

Here's a link to the CIA's actual plans for biowarfare defence. And I quote:

Traditional intelligence methods for monitoring development of weapons of mass destruction "could prove inadequate" in dealing with the threat from advanced biological weapons, the report said.

I believe what they're saying is - "Creating mad disaeases and then trying to find a cure wont work". So, why exactly are they still trying? It wont defend them from biowarfare attacks, so what sense does it make? Regardless of being unethical...