[Even if we stipulate that Nat is right on the moral and scientific points, not everything that is immoral or bad science should be against the law. Unless a federal law is being or is about to be violated, the Feds had no business on someone's private property or conducting an investigation. And even if there were a federal law that the admittedly kooky researchers purportedly violated, that law likely does not comport with the limited powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution. Also, contrary to the hype of USN&WR, which brags that "investigators have uncovered a secret lab tied to human cloning," the lab is hardly secret. Clonaid publicly says it charges $200K+ for its services, has sent representatives to testify before Congress (http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,42717,00.html) and even lists the address of a PR contact (http://www.clonaid.com/english/pages/home.html). A contrary view is here: "For a Total Ban on Human Cloning," Jun. 26, 2001 (http://www.weeklystandard.com/magazine/mag_6_40_01/bottum_kristol_ed_6_40_01.asp) --Declan] ******** Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 16:49:30 -0400 From: Nat <nathaniel.echolsat_private> To: Declan McCullagh <declanat_private> Subject: Re: FC: Feds raid unapproved cloning lab in attempt to stifle research In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010701155050.0214d3e0at_private> Declan, this is a load of horseshit. The current risks associated with cloning mammals are unbelievable. Anyone who attempts to clone a human given the current state of the art is likely committing an unpardonable act of cruelty and stupidity- it's akin to my friends in the physics department here building an atomic pile in the basement. The failure rate so far is absurd; the chances of a viable birth are extremely low for human- it's simply miserable for other animals (mice are relatively easy, but because of quick gestation, not better techniques. there's quite a few dead baby mice involved still). It has also become apparent that even the surviving animals may have serious defects later in life, since adult DNA may have undergone considerable chemical modification that changes the expression of genes. Of course the conservative/anti-abortion folks are likely to be especially disturbed by these risks; I'd have to say I agree with them, on scientific and moral grounds. These are not just concerns for conservatives and Luddites. I have had several professors here who have expressed their disapproval of this sort of research, for similar grounds (and sometimes more general ethical ones as well). They are still in favor of genetic engineering and manipulation of other mammals, and their life has been devoted to free and open scientific research. [ conversely, at least one of these profs. said he strongly favored stem cell research. ] > THOUGH STILL publicly wavering on whether to support funding for stem cell > research, the Bush administration has begun wading into the tangle of > issues that accompany the new reproductive technologies. A health official > testifying before Congress last month signaled the administration's support > for a bill to ban all human cloning. [...] Good. They've got to get something right eventually. Now if they'd lift their opposition to stem cell research- a field that could actually improve human life, unlike cloning. > Here's an item about the Feds banning certain types of biological research. > More evidence that government is flexing its muscles to interfere in > research it has decided is not acceptable...or that it is not controlling > for its own purposes. I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, a noted amateur I believe the risks more than justify this sort of interference. I don't believe there is any sort of moral consensus about human cloning; this is an issue which the scientific community cannot afford to ignore the voice of the public and government. I fail to see how a group of religious kooks attempting possibly fatal experiments on human beings deserver our sympathy, or are victims of a tyrranical government. It's not like crypto, it's like Revlon using babies instead of rabbits. -Nat Echols (Biologist / Hacker / "Depraved East Coast Elitist Ivory Tower Liberal") ******** Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 17:17:22 -0500 Subject: Re: FC: Feds raid unapproved cloning lab in attempt to stifle research From: Virginia Postrel <virginiaat_private> To: <declanat_private> Message-ID: <B7650BA1.4646%virginiaat_private> In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010701155050.0214d3e0at_private> Also see my two pieces (take your pick): http://www.dynamist.com/cells.html and http://www.dynamist.com/opeds/latcells.html -- Virginia Postrel (virginiaat_private) Editor-at-large, Reason magazine Author, The Future and Its Enemies "Economic Scene" columnist, The New York Times http://www.dynamist.com | http://www.reason.com ******** Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001 17:19:13 -0500 Subject: Re: FC: Feds raid unapproved cloning lab in attempt to stifle research From: Virginia Postrel <virginiaat_private> To: <declanat_private> And see Ron Bailey's BIO reports, especially the 2nd and 4th items: http://reason.com/rb/rb062901.html -- Virginia Postrel (virginiaat_private) Editor-at-large, Reason magazine Author, The Future and Its Enemies "Economic Scene" columnist, The New York Times http://www.dynamist.com | http://www.reason.com ******** Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2001 11:36:55 -0700 To: cypherpunksat_private From: Tim May <tcmayat_private> Subject: Re: Banned Research and Raids on "Secret Labs" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" At 10:00 AM -0700 7/1/01, Tim May wrote: ><x-flowed>Here's an item about the Feds banning certain types of biological >research. More evidence that government is flexing its muscles to >interfere in research it has decided is not acceptable...or that it >is not controlling for its own purposes. I wonder what Thomas >Jefferson, a noted amateur scientist, would have thought of the >federal government raiding labs and subpoening records when it >decided it wanted to? His cryptography research, for example? So much >for the real spirit of the First and Fourth, amongst others. I discussed several different issues related tot his raid/ban/UFO cult/etc. To separate some of the issues: 1. The basic issue of the constitutionality in these united States of "bans" on research, qua research. Whether the research is about cloning or cryptography or nuclear science, the issue of whether government has the constitutional authority to _ban_ research (as opposed to, say, exploding nuclear weapons or manufacturing nerve agents) is a basic one. 1A: Congress surely has the authority to bar the use of government funding in human cloning. The issue above is not about government funding, but whether they may suppress scientific research by individuals, universities, corporations, and other non-federally funded entities. 2. The issue of how "raids" and "subpoenas" and "visits" and "crackdowns" occur. This is related to the issue of warrants and subpoenas being increasingly easy to obtain, with many judges pre-signing stacks of warrants/orders to be used as LEAs see fit. In the case of this "secret lab" being "visited." there are Fourth Amendment and trespassing issues. 2A: Trespassing on corporate property has long been the norm for regulatory agents, without them seeking specific court approval. OSHA visits corporations (and even private institutions) to check on the height of seat chairs and the placement of safety showers. Fire marshals check for fire extinguishers and safety posters. Perhaps worst of all, IMO, "Child Protective Services" has the apparent right, they claim, to show up at a house or apartment and demand to inspect the premises. These are all cases where the letter of the Fourth Amendment is certainly not being followed, and the spirit is being obliterated. There is very little difference between what the Founders were concerned about, that the King's Men would randomly enter homes looking for seditious materials and troublemakers, and the current situations where the new instances of the King's Men can enter homes, corporations, and other private properties to look for politically incorrect materials. 2B: Copyright and anti-piracy is a related issue. Surprise audits of corporations, for example. (Hey, if I _suspect_ my neighbor has illegally copied a tape I lent him just for viewing, can I demand to inspect his house?) 3. The "chilling effect" issue. These raids and "timeouts" (their language) are used to harass and slow down researchers and other politically incorrect persons. The language is telling: "send a message," "signal our unhappiness," "order a timeout," "a shot across the bow," etc. These raids and subpoenas and "visits" are designed to intimidate in an extra-constitutional way. The Founders would see this as another case of the King's Men throwing their weight around. (We have seen this in crypto, where labs get "visits" by Men in Black from the Office of Export Control, the NSA, etc. We see fewer reports, at least reported here, of researchers being warned that their research could land them in trouble, but it probably still happens. ) 4. Lastly, the science and pseudoscience issue. This UFO cult was visited/raided on the basis of bizarre claims about their desire to clone a dead baby, with some weird mix-in cult beliefs. Where's the scientific credibility that they have the means and knowledge to do a real clone? All of these issues are part of the slippery slope of banning research. We are seeing a move toward an era of Forbidden Knowledge. It started with some limited areas of military research and extended into cryptography in the 60s and 70s (maybe some classifications before the 60s, too). Now it is being extended into biology. Sen. Feinstein wants "bomb-making instructions" banned. Sen. Lieberman has his own list of things he wants banned. My reading of the U.S. Constitution says that government may not ban information or limit the reading (research, thinking) activities of the people. And it says the powers of law enforcement are not to be used outside of legitimate court-ordered actions, with public trials and juries of one's peers. Using law enforcement to "send messages" and "order timeouts" and "fire a shot across the bow" is just not part of our judicial or legislative system. But since the Supreme Court has not even dared to revisit the Second Amendment limitations (of Miller), they are unlikely to face up to this slippery slope of increasing Thought Police activities. --Tim May -- Timothy C. May tcmayat_private Corralitos, California Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns ******** ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 22:30:16 PDT