The applications of new technology like 3D printers and DNA synthesizers are both incredible, and incredibly daunting. Already, 3D printing technology has advanced far enough that with freely available online blueprints, anyone with a 3D printer can print their own working gun. Airports security worries about all-plastic guns that may slide under their radar, since they don't even need to be made of metal.
Fears grow over 3-D printed guns
Even scarier: We've all heard about biological weapons, and perhaps read a book or seen a movie where disease is the villain's weapon of choice. Well now you can make your own virus. A DNA synthesizer costs about $3,000 on ebay, and the DNA sequences of thousands of animals, plants, bacteria, and–yes–viruses are available freely online. Add a package of nucleotides, and BAM. You can make a virus. In an effort to highlight the problem of allowing viral DNA sequences to be publicly online, a team from The Guardian sequenced a strain of smallpox–a disease eradicated from the population just 30 years ago (the article below).Revealed: the lax laws that could allow assembly of deadly virus DNA
In this age of information, the government has a tough job maintaining what should be regulated and what should not be. Citing freedom of speech, scientists who sequence strains of any disease have the right to publish their findings. Yet if some of this information were to fall into the hand of (bio)terrorists, the effects on the world could be catastrophic. You might ask why a scientist would publish a viral sequence in the first place? Often times unaffiliated, independent researchers use such strains to find cures for the disease, or similar diseases.There is a clearly a huge gap between the potential for good, and the potential for evil. There is also the issue of free speech vs. potential harm to Americans (and humans as a whole) for the government to consider. The bottom line:
Should the U.S. government censor the sequences of DNA available online?
(sorry it got so long. hopefully you were able to bear with me. this is important.)
5 comments:
Currently, the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) is the US government's record of all DNA sequences, and the sequences are available for the entire public to access online. The issue with censoring viral sequences is that viruses need to be created in order to anticipate and analyze mutations. Also, if these sequences' access were restricted, how would the government dictate who would get access? Creating reasonable and logical restrictions would be extremely difficult. In addition, even if the government were to restrict access, bioterrorists could bring in the virus from other countries relatively easily.
Ever since I heard about DNA sequencers and 3D printers, I've had a feeling it could explode into something greater. Already, there are stories of how these technologies could improve health (3D printed casts for fractures) or destroy health (3D guns). Because it is so unprecedented, the Government has a big responsibility in regulating these technologies. Personally, I think DNA sequence information should be regulated, but that would be an impossible task. As Sean pointed out, there's always a way for someone to access confidential information.
I Agree with what you are saying Alex, in that there are foreseen benefits with the use of 3D printers and how they could improve healthy, as I have read somethings about that topic as well.
At first when I was thinking about this topic and initially writing my comment I was thinking "yeah we should be able to view DNA with potentially deadly viruses" My though process was that scientists would have ready information to tackle these viruses, but know I think different because why should harmful viruses that could be used in biological weapons be free to the public. Shouldn't scientists in the government be the ones would tackle the challenge of eradicating viral DNA strains? Maybe I'm wrong... but just a thought
DNA sequences shouldn't be censored because publication of them should fall under free speech. In today's society, the free dissemination of information is considered a right in most western countries. To infringe upon that right in the "public interest" isn't really in the public's interest - ultimately, the people who wish to, and have the technology to build superviruses don't lack the bits and pieces of information they could ostensibly get from looking at DNA sequences; they're more interested in the techniques used to synthesize and design such strands. From this viewpoint, the only way to slow the development of such a weapon is to censor the techniques, a move that would be akin to censoring google because you're afraid somebody could search for how to build a bomb.
I think biological warfare has always been a terrifying threat to the world, and the advancement of technology just heightens the potential we have to create it. I don't really know much about the subject, but I feel like it's plausible that people would develop viruses but not use them. The thing about it though is that if someone chooses to use a virus to their advantage, they'd need a cure/vaccination as well. An enormous amount of time, effort, and money would have to go into it. And there's no real way to contain a virus. Once you've put it out, it's out there. I'm not sure if anyone's got the balls to do that. And I think people would just fight a virus with another virus, and that would get too insane. The whole world would die.
Everything I'm saying is based off of science fiction.
In response to Nathan, yes, free speech. But in this case, I don't believe it would really be censorship, because I don't think the government would force the people with the DNA info to make it private. I think the NCBI would willingly make the DNA info private if they thought it was for the good of the public. The info would still be out there though because if it's public now, anyone can record it.
Post a Comment