WSJ: Gains in Bioscience Cause Terror Fears Tuesday, Aug 31 2010
From The Wall Street Journal:
Rapid advances in bioscience are raising alarms among terrorism experts that amateur scientists will soon be able to gin up deadly pathogens for nefarious uses.
Fears of bioterror have been on the rise since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, stoking tens of billions of dollars of government spending on defenses, and the White House and Congress continue to push for new measures.
But the fear of a mass-casualty terrorist attack using bioweapons has always been tempered by a single fact: Of the scores of plots uncovered during the past decade, none have featured biological weapons. Indeed, many experts doubt terrorists even have the technical capability to acquire and weaponize deadly bugs.
The new fear, though, is that scientific advances that enable amateur scientists to carry out once-exotic experiments, such as DNA cloning, could be put to criminal use. Many well-known figures are sounding the alarm over the revolution in biological science, which amounts to a proliferation of know-how—if not the actual pathogens.
Another bit later in the article:
All the government attention comes despite the absence of known terrorist plots involving biological weapons. According to U.S. counterterrorism officials, al Qaeda last actively tried to work with bioweapons—specifically anthrax—before the 2001 invasion of that uprooted its leadership from Afghanistan.
This is great. It’s best to pay attention to obvious risks, like this, nuclear terrorism, the integrity of the power grid under solar storms, major earthquakes, etc., before they happen, not after. Often times, adequate preparation even requires little marginal effort.




I’ve been commenting on this same article in other forums, and I have a question: Isn’t it much more likely that somebody “gins up” a standard, known pathogen like H1N1 or an Ebola variant than some previously unknown “superbug”? I have my doubts that a “Stephen King Superflu” is a realistic scenario, when it’s probably much easier for criminals to find a source of existing pathogens.
This is not my area of expertise, so I welcome anyone’s thoughts on it.
Part of my Amazon review of:
Biology Is Technology: The Promise, Peril, and New Business of Engineering Life by Robert Carlson ; March 15, 2010
Excellent survey of recent developments AND a thorough argument that openness contributes more to our safety from future attacks and accidents than trying to restrict knowledge and materials could.
Michael & all-
Thank you for keeping this issue in public discussion while also maintaining a realistical, proactive focus.
In considering our children’s future with genetically engineered bioviolence, Dr. Dexler’s famous 2007 comment is especially relevant- “…Advancing technologies
will eventually make it easy to suppress terrorism. The great struggle will be to keep this power from suppressing too much more.”
Sir Martin Rees voiced the same concern in his 2006 Edge interview, even calling it his “greatest concern”. See also Nick Bostrom’s similar concern within his excellent ‘What is a Singleton’ article at his website.
I would add one further concern. If a technologically- enhanced, single regulatory authority is a possible (or likely)consequence of emerging technologies and super-empowered individual violence, what is the more likely outcome? For example, what does the history of man’s implementation of complex projects tell us about the likelihood of under-planning, under-testing, erronous implementation and other unintended consequences from a hastily implemented Singleton? As Nick Bostrom himself wrote, trial and error is not an effective approach to existential risks.
Is it possible that mass bioviolence is now otherwise unpreventable and that our best actionable focus is to mitigate the risks of an under-implemented Singleton? Is this issue even being discussed?
Thank you again. I’ve found your blog most beneficial so many times.