AvBaeyer
National Hazard
Posts: 651
Registered: 25-2-2014
Location: CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
An Article for Thought and Discussion
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/making-science-more-open-is-...
I came across the above article today and after reading it I was offended (?) by its premise. Are some scientific results too dangerous to be
available to the general public? Should only safe science be done to negate concerns about "security"? Though the focus of this essay is on the
biological sciences I think that most of us on this forum already understand the general attitude toward home and/or amateur chemistry. Should certain
results from scientific inquiry be restricted to a select few due to concerns about "security"? I just thought posting the link and asking for other's
serious thoughts would make for some interesting discussion.
So take a look.
AvB
|
|
|
clearly_not_atara
International Hazard
Posts: 2800
Registered: 3-11-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: Big
|
|
Restrictions on weapons research are nothing new. It was applied to nuclear chain reaction research practically as soon as the phenomenon was
discovered. Biowarfare looks like the next nuclear weapons, so this is a likely result.
The shitty thing is that the neoliberal nomenklatura are taking this as an opportunity to try to shut the public out of things that don't require the
most absolute guarantees of security but might be inconvenient for the establishment if people found out. Again, this isn't entirely new. The
Journal of Clandestine Laboratory Chemistry has long been closed not only to the public but to most researchers. Now it's okay if you use
GPT-3 to push an establishment-approved viewpoint but not okay if you have some other viewpoint.
"O tempora! O mores!"
|
|
|
katyushaslab
Hazard to Self
Posts: 81
Registered: 19-1-2021
Member Is Offline
Mood: precipitating
|
|
Thankfully, their back catalogue appears to be on some file sharing site.
The below, base64 encoded string, is entirely unrelated.
aHR0cHM6Ly9nb2ZpbGUuaW8vZC8xOHJuRnE=
|
|
|
karlos³
International Hazard
Posts: 1520
Registered: 10-1-2011
Location: yes!
Member Is Offline
Mood: oxazolidinic 8)
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by katyushaslab  |
Thankfully, their back catalogue appears to be on some file sharing site.
The below, base64 encoded string, is entirely unrelated.
aHR0cHM6Ly9nb2ZpbGUuaW8vZC8xOHJuRnE=
|
Uh what, really the "full" catalgoue?
Or is it the stuff which only goes till 2017?
Because yeah, that comes from the vesp, one of ours got it from a former workplace 
verrückt und wissenschaftlich
|
|
|
paulll
Hazard to Others
Posts: 112
Registered: 1-5-2018
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's fine. Really.
|
|
Advocating for security through obscurity is a good way to tap out of any serious discussion about security.
|
|
|
aab18011
Hazard to Self
Posts: 74
Registered: 11-7-2019
Location: Connecticut, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Moving out and setting up shop in my new chemistry hobbit hole
|
|
I am not anti government by any stretch, but boy am I against "hiding" and obfuscating science. Without science, we have no truth. Science is the
search for the truth, and thus is imperative to a free and open science. It is much like free speech, which is also imperative to a free society.
Freedom and liberty, or none at all.
As a (in)famous man once said, "Id rather die on my feet than die on my knees". Im brutish about this, but its insulting to all of the scientists that
have paved the way before our time.
This also is a red flag for me; it suggests a growing concern from ruling class regarding the lower classes knowing to much.
I am the one who boils to dryness, fear me...
H He Li B C(12,14) Na S Cl Mn Fe Cu Zn Ba Ag Sn I U(238)
"I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees" -Emiliano Zapata
|
|
|
BromicAcid
International Hazard
Posts: 3253
Registered: 13-7-2003
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Rock n' Roll
|
|
There have been a few times reading through old journals / literature where I read something and think "Woah, wait?" Then re-read it and think "Holy
hell, it's that easy..." and finally I write it down thinking "better not let anyone else find out about this".
|
|
|
unionised
International Hazard
Posts: 5128
Registered: 1-11-2003
Location: UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I am fairly sure that anyone involved in IT or physical security will tell you that "security by obfuscation" will not work.
You have to design the system such that it is still "safe" even when your opponent is fully informed.
The information on "how to build the A bomb is available on wiki.
But you can't buy enriched uranium on eBay.
|
|
|
SWIM
National Hazard
Posts: 970
Registered: 3-9-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
So so far , so good.
But if somebody figures out how to make an A-bomb out of lead, sodium chloride, and old condoms then we have a problem.
Controlling the materials has worked out well so far, but what if it stops working?
So would you hide the information if it makes it possible for half the posters on here (Just an example of a certain low level of competence and
financial backing, not implying anybody here would nuke a city when pissed off.) to make an incurable plague disease, or a nuclear weapon with a
minimal investment in time and effort?
I don't believe this is possible, but I have no damned idea what surprises future research may have in store for us.
Or what about something actually world-ending that's within the scope of a dedicated national program by a small country?
There are people who would happily destroy the world even if it meant their own deaths.
So should considerations like this be within the scope of this conversation, or are we just talking about currently known science, and assuming there
isn't already something like this out there that is (for the time being) kept quiet?
I'm asking the OP, because this is his barbecue and I don't want to confuse matters by trying to get his guests to eat Lutefisk instead.
I'm all for scientific openness, but this subject reminds me of a story I heard of about a guy who jumped off a 20 story building.
They could hear him yelling all the way down.
As he passed each story he yelled, "So far, so good. So far, so good."
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3032
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SWIM |
So so far , so good.
But if somebody figures out how to make an A-bomb out of lead, sodium chloride, and old condoms then we have a problem.
Controlling the materials has worked out well so far, but what if it stops working?
So would you hide the information if it makes it possible for half the posters on here (Just an example of a certain low level of competence and
financial backing, not implying anybody here would nuke a city when pissed off.) to make an incurable plague disease, or a nuclear weapon with a
minimal investment in time and effort?
I don't believe this is possible, but I have no damned idea what surprises future research may have in store for us.
Or what about something actually world-ending that's within the scope of a dedicated national program by a small country?
There are people who would happily destroy the world even if it meant their own deaths.
So should considerations like this be within the scope of this conversation, or are we just talking about currently known science, and assuming there
isn't already something like this out there that is (for the time being) kept quiet?
I'm asking the OP, because this is his barbecue and I don't want to confuse matters by trying to get his guests to eat Lutefisk instead.
I'm all for scientific openness, but this subject reminds me of a story I heard of about a guy who jumped off a 20 story building.
They could hear him yelling all the way down.
As he passed each story he yelled, "So far, so good. So far, so good."
|
The difference between an A bomb and a plague is that enriched uranium is not obtainable, but everything for a plague is. With enough knowledge (read;
papers how to do it) I could build the next plague in my shed. You only need one smart idiot to build a virus, biology takes care of the rest.
[Edited on 5-5-2022 by Tsjerk]
|
|
|
SWIM
National Hazard
Posts: 970
Registered: 3-9-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Making a plague in your shed would be facilitated by the ability to correctly interpret written communications.
Based on your above post, I think we're safe.
|
|
|
aab18011
Hazard to Self
Posts: 74
Registered: 11-7-2019
Location: Connecticut, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Moving out and setting up shop in my new chemistry hobbit hole
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SWIM |
So so far , so good.
But if somebody figures out how to make an A-bomb out of lead, sodium chloride, and old condoms then we have a problem.
Controlling the materials has worked out well so far, but what if it stops working?
So would you hide the information if it makes it possible for half the posters on here (Just an example of a certain low level of competence and
financial backing, not implying anybody here would nuke a city when pissed off.) to make an incurable plague disease, or a nuclear weapon with a
minimal investment in time and effort?
I don't believe this is possible, but I have no damned idea what surprises future research may have in store for us.
Or what about something actually world-ending that's within the scope of a dedicated national program by a small country?
There are people who would happily destroy the world even if it meant their own deaths.
So should considerations like this be within the scope of this conversation, or are we just talking about currently known science, and assuming there
isn't already something like this out there that is (for the time being) kept quiet?
I'm asking the OP, because this is his barbecue and I don't want to confuse matters by trying to get his guests to eat Lutefisk instead.
I'm all for scientific openness, but this subject reminds me of a story I heard of about a guy who jumped off a 20 story building.
They could hear him yelling all the way down.
As he passed each story he yelled, "So far, so good. So far, so good."
|
I think you vastly underestimate peoples ability to be ignorant and or stupid.
Just because we have a govt doesn't mean that they will do in our best interest. As much as Id love to believe that my govt is going to keep us safe
by denying certain information to the public, doesn't mean it happens. One of my buddies was approached by the FBI at a job fair, and they asked him
to be apart of a weaponized bacteria project. Their idea was to make a bacteria that would selectively eat the skin/flesh off of a human of their
choosing. They are so dumb that they believe thats possible. That alone makes me shiver, and makes me less confident in that three letter agency. We
have govt institutions full of rogue groups who abuse power. Id rather everyone know how to make a bomb than for only the group in power to know.
I am the one who boils to dryness, fear me...
H He Li B C(12,14) Na S Cl Mn Fe Cu Zn Ba Ag Sn I U(238)
"I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees" -Emiliano Zapata
|
|
|
Tsjerk
International Hazard
Posts: 3032
Registered: 20-4-2005
Location: Netherlands
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SWIM | Making a plague in your shed would be facilitated by the ability to correctly interpret written communications.
Based on your above post, I think we're safe. |
Please elaborate why you think I might be incapable of interpreting.
|
|
|
karlos³
International Hazard
Posts: 1520
Registered: 10-1-2011
Location: yes!
Member Is Offline
Mood: oxazolidinic 8)
|
|
This exactly.
verrückt und wissenschaftlich
|
|
|
Metacelsus
International Hazard
Posts: 2539
Registered: 26-12-2012
Location: Boston, MA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Double, double, toil and trouble
|
|
Home chemistry is harmless to society (even beneficial given its effects on scientific training).
Most home biology is also fine, it's just that these days training someone in biological lab techniques is equivalent to giving them a pile of
enriched uranium.
But I think the greatest risk is from irresponsible academic labs trying to make an "exciting" paper for Cell/Nature/Science.
|
|
|
yobbo II
National Hazard
Posts: 765
Registered: 28-3-2016
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thanks for the link katyushaslab.
That's the BEST collection of short stories I have read in manys the day.
Attached is my favourite so far.
Lesson of the day:
K Chlorate is not the same as Ephedrine.
Yob
Attachment: chlor.pdf (639kB)
This file has been downloaded 295 times
|
|
|
Fyndium
International Hazard
Posts: 1192
Registered: 12-7-2020
Location: Not in USA
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yes you can read nuclear weapons construction and atomic physics from Wikipedia, but they do not tell the actual details how to do things. You as
chemists know that everything is very specialized and exact sciences and a little can make lot wrong. The exact structure and physics of nuclear
weapon is still classified, and until someone tests and publishes that data, it remains only well educated speculation of what it actually is.
However, biggest inhibitor is still the fact that enriched uranium, plutonium and tritium are exceedingly difficult to source even if you had plenty
of resources. Big nations of millions of people with billions of money and state of the art technology and professionals have had their challenges
putting up those facilities. After everything this, even if someone managed to get their hands on some nuclear material, radiological weaponization of
that would be the most likely scenario. Single stage gunbarrel bomb, which has physics pretty much of having big enough charge to bring two pieces of
subcritical mass together before they repel each other, has quite low yield, and will cause major localized damage and pollution, but will suffer from
low efficiency. Steps to actual strategic scale weapons are still high and numerous.
The basic people think home chemistry as what many young chemists start their career with, that is pyrotechnics of energetics, including myself. It
can have also many other malicious uses, apart from offensive harmful compounds to passively harmful, including controlled substances. Still, you, as
chemists, can see that restricting a selection of key reagents will make it very difficult for the average cook to make any controlled substances, and
increases the risk of getting caught by the rest due to need to source pre-precursors and make them. One very good example for banning strong acids
from public is acid attacks, which have been well prevented by this.
Still, I support freedom of information. Institutions have always been afraid of free access to information, threatening to undermine their special
status as the sole possessors of that information. Every tyrannic state has restricted access to information and education in many ways. In middle
ages it was religion that was threatened by science which step by step proved it to be a big bluff, behind the iron curtain it was illegal to learn
foreign languages - because they obviously would have allowed people to access information of the free world and see the bluff.
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
