FC: More on Feds, Raelian cloning lab, and trying to stifle research

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[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.echols () yale edu>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: FC: Feds raid unapproved cloning lab in attempt to stifle research
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010701155050.0214d3e0 () mail well com>

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 <virginia () dynamist com>
To: <declan () well com>
Message-ID: <B7650BA1.4646%virginia () dynamist com>
In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010701155050.0214d3e0 () mail well com>

Also see my two pieces (take your pick): http://www.dynamist.com/cells.html
and http://www.dynamist.com/opeds/latcells.html

--
Virginia Postrel (virginia () dynamist com)
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 <virginia () dynamist com>
To: <declan () well com>

And see Ron Bailey's BIO reports, especially the 2nd and 4th items:
http://reason.com/rb/rb062901.html

--
Virginia Postrel (virginia () dynamist com)
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: cypherpunks () lne com
From: Tim May <tcmay () got net>
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         tcmay () got net        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/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------