>> Music
>> HOUSTON: "Dual use research is research that is designed for the benefit
of our society. However, there may be techniques in which there is an opportunity for misuse."
>> JAAX: "I believe that biotechnology is perhaps our greatest tool in
trying to find ways to counter disease. It's a dual edge
sword, and it's perhaps our greatest challenge because the
very same techniques that would allow us to produce innovative
countermeasures also provide opportunities for someone to use them in a bad way."
>> TUCKER: "There have been a number of experiments that have produced
unexpected results, that if technology fell into the hands
of someone who wanted to do harm and had the opportunity to
do so, it could be quite devastating."
>> KAPLAN: "Dual use, in the scientific sense, is taking legitimate
research and the results, and products of that research, and
using it or finding that there are other ways to use it that
are more harmful to humankind than what it was initially designed to do."
>> Music
>> WIMMER: "I think it is a real threat. It is potential, but it is also
real. It is not as apparent in many cases. It is immediately
apparent in other cases."
>> FLETCHER: "I think there are certain things that can be done to
minimize the risks, but there's always going to be the potential for negative purposes."
>> KATZE: "I'm sure the threat is real because I mean if you can have
biologicals that can cause harm to people, there's always going
to be a threat that somebody will use it improperly."
>> KASPER: "It is a very broad category; one could easily envision how
almost any research no matter how seemingly unrelated to doing
harm, a clever mind could potentially turn that around."
>> KAPLAN: "A piece of knowledge that may come out of the laboratory today
is seemingly without harm whatsoever, but when put into a
series of other pieces of information, could be devastating."
>> TUCKER: "In the case of nuclear physics there was an iconic experience,
the mushroom cloud, that made it clear to nuclear physicists that
their work had security implications. There has been no
comparable iconic experience for life scientists."
>> Music
>> FLETCHER: "I don't think that the public should worry about terrorism
every day. But I think that our government and our recovery
system, our scientific community, need to think about
it carefully and on a regular basis and have plans and
procedures in place to deal with it."
>> HOUSTON: "I think government ultimately should have some overall say in
the rules of conduct among scientists. If they are going
to be funded with government money, then they should adhere by the rules."
>> SINGER: "You need to have the scientists involved in the discussions
about the rules. Because they will be knowledgeable and
sensitive about the nuances and will not allow
for blanket statements that don't make sense."
>> KATZE: "I think it is absolutely essential that we as scientists
continue this research because the only way to know about how
viruses cause disease or how bacteria cause disease, is to
work with these highly virulent agents and to be able to learn
about them through experiments in the laboratory."
>> SINGER: "If you go to laboratories that do research with such organisms,
you will see that the requirements are extremely
stringent. Whether you need more than that is a question for the experts in those fields."
>> HOUSTON: "I think that scientists should be allowed to not be inhibited
in terms of their innovation and creativity but at the same time
we must have limits to what we're doing."
>> KAPLAN: "I do not believe there should be any kind of controls that
prevent the free exchange of scientific information. That's my personal opinion."
>> JAAX: "Most of the stuff that is coming out as far as security
and scientific regulation is making it harder, but you have
to be convinced that you are making it better too.
The regulatory environment is the cost of doing business."
>> KWAN: "If it just becomes a matter of legislation, then a lot of
things are going to be stifled. That is why it is that much more
important for scientists take the initiative."
>> TUCKER: "I do think that it is really the scientific community that
has to come up to the plate and address the security
implications of certain types of life science research."
>> KASPER: "I think it is all of our responsibility. But I do believe
that it starts with the scientists."
>> Music
>> WIMMER: "It really has to start with more global thinking. Students
have to be, and investigators in the same way, have to be
on alert that there is now this issue that always existed
but has become, because of modern technology, a real problem."
>> FLETCHER: "I think the point of view of considering the potential for
negative uses can be presented to the incoming graduate
students and the younger scientists so that's part of
their mindset as they go through their careers."
>> SINGER: "For people who are worried about issues like this, science
education ought to be on their agendas."
>> TUCKER: "It is really in the interests of the scientists themselves to
engage in this problem and try and shape it in a way that
will minimize the harm to the scientific enterprise."
>> KWAN: "We have a responsibility not only to our personal research
but also to the research community and the communities we
live in and frankly now a global responsibility."
>> KASPER: "I firmly believe that scientists in this country are
overall extremely concerned about public good."
>> HOUSTON: "We can do a lot for the public trust by being transparent
in a number of things that we do."
>> WIMMER: "This is a problem that we're all working on, that we have to
work on in order to find the best path."
>> Music