Comments on: Anthrax and the Mad Scientist http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/anthrax-and-the-mad-scientist/ Progressive approaches to science policy Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:54:22 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: C. Martin Centner http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/anthrax-and-the-mad-scientist/comment-page-1/#comment-2683 C. Martin Centner Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:24:16 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/anthrax-and-the-mad-scientist/#comment-2683 I think it odd, frankly, that the author is concerned as to how Ivin's death will affect the image of science. The departed was a researcher, and like other humans, he could do evil. He was also a family man, a citizen of Maryland, a Catholic, and Red Cross volunteer. We don't hold those attributes accountable for his [alleged] misdeeds, so I do not see why one should hold science accountable either. I think Mr. Mooney's concerns are misdirected. Ivins, it is alleged, was singled out by the identification of Antrax DNA unique to his flask. As far as I understand it, there are no studies published on this topic in peer-reviewed journals. If correct, that would place the claim into the realm of scientific theory, not science. The testable hypothesis has been formulated, but the hypothesis has not been tested or evaluated by peers. We should not declare a person guilty on an untested theory. Perhaps Mr. Mooney could look further into this issue. We must also recall that the FBI once claimed to be able to determine which box a bullet was pulled from by the slug's trace elements. Research proved this theory erroneous, even though the FBI used the claim in many cases. Finally, the FBI also apparently knew Mr. Ivins was mentally unstable, yet pressured him so far that he committed suicide. Guilty or innocent, this is a tragedy, and we should ask what FBI psychiatrists were recommending to the agents who conducted the investigation, and whether the recommendations were heeded. The image of science is this instance is the last thing we should worry about. It's the science itself that should be our focus. I think it odd, frankly, that the author is concerned as to how Ivin’s death will affect the image of science. The departed was a researcher, and like other humans, he could do evil. He was also a family man, a citizen of Maryland, a Catholic, and Red Cross volunteer. We don’t hold those attributes accountable for his [alleged] misdeeds, so I do not see why one should hold science accountable either.

I think Mr. Mooney’s concerns are misdirected. Ivins, it is alleged, was singled out by the identification of Antrax DNA unique to his flask. As far as I understand it, there are no studies published on this topic in peer-reviewed journals. If correct, that would place the claim into the realm of scientific theory, not science. The testable hypothesis has been formulated, but the hypothesis has not been tested or evaluated by peers. We should not declare a person guilty on an untested theory. Perhaps Mr. Mooney could look further into this issue.

We must also recall that the FBI once claimed to be able to determine which box a bullet was pulled from by the slug’s trace elements. Research proved this theory erroneous, even though the FBI used the claim in many cases.

Finally, the FBI also apparently knew Mr. Ivins was mentally unstable, yet pressured him so far that he committed suicide. Guilty or innocent, this is a tragedy, and we should ask what FBI psychiatrists were recommending to the agents who conducted the investigation, and whether the recommendations were heeded.

The image of science is this instance is the last thing we should worry about. It’s the science itself that should be our focus.

]]> By: ipsy pipsy http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/anthrax-and-the-mad-scientist/comment-page-1/#comment-2611 ipsy pipsy Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:20:52 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/anthrax-and-the-mad-scientist/#comment-2611 Isn't it interesting that a lot of leading scientists have died in interestingly suspicious manners in recent years! Look it up! One has to ask why that might be occuring. Bruce Ivins didn't do a damn thing and any moron can see that, unless of course he secretly mastered time travel! He was clearly a patsy, so what are they covering up? Could it be that they want us to believe that we need to relinquish more of our Bill of Rights for our own safety? Perhaps eveyone should read more of our founding fathers quotes and learn from history before it repeats itself and we can't catch a boat out of here. Isn’t it interesting that a lot of leading scientists have died in interestingly suspicious manners in recent years! Look it up! One has to ask why that might be occuring. Bruce Ivins didn’t do a damn thing and any moron can see that, unless of course he secretly mastered time travel! He was clearly a patsy, so what are they covering up? Could it be that they want us to believe that we need to relinquish more of our Bill of Rights for our own safety? Perhaps eveyone should read more of our founding fathers quotes and learn from history before it repeats itself and we can’t catch a boat out of here.

]]> By: Patrick McCray http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/anthrax-and-the-mad-scientist/comment-page-1/#comment-2582 Patrick McCray Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:27:59 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/anthrax-and-the-mad-scientist/#comment-2582 Chris- Nice point...you might want to see Spencer Weart's article from the early 1980s on "Physicist as Mad Scientist" which provides some great historical context for your essay. Cheers, PM Chris-

Nice point…you might want to see Spencer Weart’s article from the early 1980s on “Physicist as Mad Scientist” which provides some great historical context for your essay. Cheers,

PM

]]> By: Paul Guinnessy http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/anthrax-and-the-mad-scientist/comment-page-1/#comment-2581 Paul Guinnessy Wed, 13 Aug 2008 19:09:28 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/anthrax-and-the-mad-scientist/#comment-2581 I think its a bit early to say that Ivins is the anthrax mailer. We'll have to wait until the FBI releases detailed evidence on the basis of the scientific techniques they used to track the history of the spores (see <a href="http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/812/1" rel="nofollow">today's sciencenow story as a start</a>). The material they have released so far isn't encouraging, with too many specific statements linked to broad assumptions. Considering the pressure placed on all the suspects, its no wonder they all either came across unhinged or took their own lives. I think its a bit early to say that Ivins is the anthrax mailer. We’ll have to wait until the FBI releases detailed evidence on the basis of the scientific techniques they used to track the history of the spores (see today’s sciencenow story as a start). The material they have released so far isn’t encouraging, with too many specific statements linked to broad assumptions. Considering the pressure placed on all the suspects, its no wonder they all either came across unhinged or took their own lives.

]]>