Article 1631 of misc.activism.progressive:From:
pioneer.arc.nasa.gov!cscott@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Charles Scott ACF)Newsgroups:
misc.activism.progressiveSubject: Aids Plan?Message-ID:
<1991Dec5.000845.15614@pencil.cs.missouri.edu>Date: 5 Dec 91 00:08:45
GMTSender: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)Followup-To:
alt.activism.dOrganization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035Lines:
69Approved: map@pencil.cs.missouri.eduThis is transcribed from a hearing in
1969 for thefiscal year of 1970 between
 Congressman Sikes, Floridaand Dr MacArthur, micro-biologist.For reference,
see:  HEARINGS         before a     SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON
APPROPRIATIONS    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES     NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS
FIRST SESSIONThe topic is Syn
thetic Biological Agents   There are two things about the biological agent
field I would liketo mention.  One is the possibility of technological
surprise.  Molecularbiology is a field that is advancing very rapidly, and
eminent biologistsbelieve tha
t within a period of 5 to 10 years it would be possible to produce a
synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturallyexist and for
which no natural immunity could have been acquired.  Mr.  Sikes.  Are we
doing any work in that field?  Dr.
 MacArthur.  We are not.  Mr. Sikes.  Why not?  Lack of money or lack of
interest?  Dr.  MacArthur.  Certainly not lack of interest.  Mr.  Sikes.
Would you provide for our records information on whatwould be required,
what the advantages of such a pr
ogram would be,the time and the cost involved?  Dr.  MacArthur.  We will be
very happy to.  (The information follows:)  The dramatic progress being
made in the field of molecular biology led us toinvestigate the relevance
of this field of science to
biological warfare.  A small group of experts considered this matter and
provided the following obser-vations:  1.  All biological agents up to the
present time are representatives of naturallyoccurring disease, and are
thus known by scientists throu
ghout the world.  Theyare easily available to qualified scientists for
research, either for offensive ordefensive purposes.  2.  Within the next 5
to 10 years, it would probably be possible to make a newinfective
microorganism which could differ in c
ertain important aspects fromany known disease-causing organisius.  Most
important of these is that it mightbe refractory to the immunological and
therapeutic processes upon which wedepend to maintain our relative freedom
from infectious disease.  3.
  A research program to explore the feasibility of this could be
completedapproximately 5 years at a total cost of $10 million.  4.  It
would be very difficult to establish such a program.  Molecular biologyis a
relatively new science.  There are not
 many highly competent scientists in thefield, almost all are in university
laboratories, and they are generally adequatelysupported from sources other
than DOD.  However, it was considered possibleto initiate an adequate
program through the National
 Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS-NRC).  The matter was
discussed with the NAS-NRC, and tentative plans were madeto initiate the
program.  However, decreasing funds in CB, growing criticismof the CB
program, and our reluctance to in
volve the NAS-NRC, in such a con-troversial endeavor have led us to
postpone it for the past 2 years.  It is highly controversial issue, and
there are many who believe suchresearch should not be undertaken lest it
lead to yet another method of massiv
ekilling of large populations.  On the other hand, without the sure
scientificknowledge that such a weapon is possible, and an understanding of
the ways itcould be done, there is little that can be done to devise
defensive measures.Should an enemy de
velop it here is little doubt that this is an important areaof potential
military technological inferiority in which there is no adequateresearch
program.