| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,17 @@ |
|
1 |
+Public colleges and universities ought not restrict constitutionally protected speech, especially in regards to academic freedom, with the exception of synthetic biology research. Public colleges and universities ought to prohibit research aimed at enhancing the deadliness of pathogens. |
|
2 |
+Synthetic biology at colleges specifically is risky – releasing blueprints for crafting new diseases leads to extinction |
|
3 |
+Myhrvold 13 Nathan, PhD in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics from Princeton, and founded Intellectual Ventures after retiring as Chief Strategist and Chief Technology Officer of Microsoft Corporation, July, "Stratgic Terrorism: A Call to Action," http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Strategic-Terrorism-Myhrvold-7-3-2013.pdf |
|
4 |
+A virus genetically engineered to infect its host quickly, to generate symptoms slowly—say, only after weeks or months—and to spread easily through the air or by casual contact would be vastly more devastating than HIV. It could silently penetrate the population to unleash its deadly effects suddenly. This type of epidemic would be almost impossible to combat because most of the infections would occur before the epidemic became obvious. A technologically sophisticated terrorist group could develop such a virus and kill a large part of humanity with it. Indeed, terrorists may not have to develop it themselves: some scientist may do so first and publish the details. Given the rate at which biologists are making discoveries about viruses and the immune system, at some point in the near future, someone may create artificial pathogens that could drive the human race to extinction. Indeed, a detailed species-elimination plan of this nature was openly proposed in a scientific journal. The ostensible purpose of that particular research was to suggest a way to extirpate the malaria mosquito, but similar techniques could be directed toward humans.16 When I’ve talked to molecular biologists about this method, they are quick to point out that it is slow and easily detectable and could be fought with biotech remedies. If you challenge them to come up with improvements to the suggested attack plan, however, they have plenty of ideas. Modern biotechnology will soon be capable, if it is not already, of bringing about the demise of the human race— or at least of killing a sufficient number of people to end high-tech civilization and set humanity back 1,000 years or more. That terrorist groups could achieve this level of technological sophistication may seem far-fetched, but keep in mind that it takes only a handful of individuals to accomplish these tasks. Never has lethal power of this potency been accessible to so few, so easily. Even more dramatically than nuclear proliferation, modern biological science has frighteningly undermined the correlation between the lethality of a weapon and its cost, a fundamentally stabilizing mechanism throughout history. Access to extremely lethal agents—lethal enough to exterminate Homo sapiens—will be available to anybody with a solid background in biology, terrorists included. The 9/11 attacks involved at least four pilots, each of whom had sufficient education to enroll in flight schools and complete several years of training. Bin laden had a degree in civil engineering. Mohammed Atta attended a German university, where he earned a master’s degree in urban planning—not a field he likely chose for its relevance to terrorism. A future set of terrorists could just as easily be students of molecular biology who enter their studies innocently enough but later put their skills to homicidal use. Hundreds of universities in Europe and Asia have curricula sufficient to train people in the skills necessary to make a sophisticated biological weapon, and hundreds more in the United States accept students from all over the world. Thus it seems likely that sometime in the near future a small band of terrorists, or even a single misanthropic individual, will overcome our best defenses and do something truly terrible, such as fashion a bioweapon that could kill millions or even billions of people. Indeed, the creation of such weapons within the next 20 years seems to be a virtual certainty. The repercussions of their use are hard to estimate. One approach is to look at how the scale of destruction they may cause compares with that of other calamities that the human race has faced. |
|
5 |
+Specifically, research into deadly disease is dangerous and should be banned – accidents or terrorists could release contagious pathogens |
|
6 |
+Horgan 12 John Horgan, "Let's Ban Research That Makes the Bird-Flu Virus and Other Pathogens Deadlier," Scientific American, 2/6/2012 AZ |
|
7 |
+D: Ban all research, open or classified, aimed at making pathogens deadlier. This is my "least-bad" choice, because I believe that the risks of research like the recent H5N1 experiments outweigh potential benefits. In general, I favor unrestricted research and communication, just as I favor free speech. But if scientists keep introducing more lethal pathogens into the world, the odds grow that one of them will be unleashed intentionally or accidentally. Moreover, if the U.S. keeps pursuing research into new strains of infectious disease, other nations and groups are more likely to do so as well. My fears stem in part from the history of biological-warfare research, as detailed in accounts such as A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Chemical and Biological Warfare, by Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman (Random House, 2002). Such research, which has been carried out at least since World War II by the U.S., United Kingdom, Soviet Union, Japan and other states, has repeatedly led to releases of pathogens. In 1979, biological-warfare experiments in a Soviet facility in Sverdlovsk triggered an anthrax epidemic that killed 70 people. |
|
8 |
+College youth are uniquely vulnerable to radicalization |
|
9 |
+Fox Boston 15 "Islamic State recruiting older teens, college students," 8/29/2015 AZ |
|
10 |
+College students are heading back to the dorms and lecture halls. They are adjusting to life away from home and finding a new identity for themselves. While it may seem far-fetched, for some that makes them the perfect target for something sinister and it's happening more than you think. FOX25 investigates the way ISIS is recruiting on campus. A MOTHER'S PLEA Nineteen year old Mohammed Hamzah Khan is accused of trying to support ISIS and is facing serious terror charges. His mother, Zarine, has a public plea to the terror group to stop recruiting children: "Without the internet, without social media this would never had happened and my son would not be in this situation he is in today. Leave our children alone. Please. That's my only message. Just stop recruiting these children. They're too young they don't know what's going on . They're vulnerable. Their thinking skills have not completely developed and these people are preying on that" ISIS RECRUITMENT TACTICS AND SOCIAL MEDIA ISIS is changing it's recruitment tactics. Experts say propaganda videos are less bloody and produced professionally. Social media is a high priority and they're taking online communication to the next level to catch the eye of college students. The number of websites, forums, Twitter accounts, Facebook pages that belong to ISIS and other similar organizations have increased . Professor Dana Janbek of Lasell College studies global terrorism and new media. She says the online magazine ISIS publishes is an example of how the terror group is trying to get their message across by seeming more legitimate in an attempt at luring young people with higher skill sets. Janbek says the magazine includes current events, making it relevant and it is professionally written. ISIS RECRUITING COLLEGE STUDENTS Professor Dana Janbek tells FOX25 that even though ISIS is viewed as a extremist terror organization, they see themselves as a legitimate government and they are aiming high when recruiting college students. They rely on people with different backgrounds and different skill sets including students and professionals who have a medical backgrounds. |
|
11 |
+Studies prove |
|
12 |
+Greer 14 Scott Greer (deputy editor), "Study: Spoiled, wealthy college students more likely to support terrorism," Daily Caller, http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/20/study-spoiled-wealthy-college-students-more-likely-to-support-terrorism/#ixzz4VsjULps |
|
13 |
+According to the study conducted by Queen Mary University in London found that youth, wealth and a full-time education are significant risk factors for violent radicalization. The researchers worked from the belief that radicalization is a process and focused on the factors that define the pre-radicalization phase and make individuals susceptible to the messaging of extremist groups in their study. |
|
14 |
+Synth bio research is protected by academic freedom |
|
15 |
+Miller 7 Seumas Miller (Professor of Philosophy at Charles Sturt University, and Senior Research Fellow, 3TU Centre for Ethics and Technology), Michael J. Selgelid, "Ethical and Philosophical Consideration of the Dual-use |
|
16 |
+Dilemma in the Biological Sciences," 2007 AZ |
|
17 |
+The dual-use dilemma is obviously a dilemma for researchers, viz. those researchers involved in biological research that has the potential to be misused by bioterrorists, criminal organisations and governments engaged in biowarfare. But it is also a dilemma for the private and public institutions, including universities, that fund or otherwise enable research to be undertaken. The dilemma is made more acute for university-based researchers and for universities, given their commitments to such values as academic freedom and the unfettered dissemination of research findings; and for private companies, given their commitment to free-enterprise. More generally, it is a dilemma for the individual communities for whose benefit or, indeed, to whose potential detriment, the research is being conducted, and for the national governments who bear the moral and legal responsibility of ensuring that the security of their citizens is provided for. Finally, in the context of an increasingly interdependent set of nation-states—the so-called, global community— the dual-use dilemma has become a dilemma for international bodies such as the United Nations. |