Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military United States Science

US Military Program Could Be Seen As a Bioweapon, Scientists Warn (phys.org) 91

Posted by BeauHD from the genetically-modified dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org: A research arm of the U.S. military is exploring the possibility of deploying insects to make plants more resilient by altering their genes. Some experts say the work may be seen as a potential biological weapon. In an opinion paper published Thursday in the journal Science, the authors say the U.S. needs to provide greater justification for the peace-time purpose of its Insect Allies project to avoid being perceived as hostile to other countries. Other experts expressed ethical and security concerns with the research, which seeks to transmit protective traits to crops already growing in the field. That would mark a departure from the current widely used procedure of genetically modifying seeds for crops such as corn and soy, before they grow into plants.

The military research agency says its goal is to protect the nation's food supply from threats like drought, crop disease and bioterrorism by using insects to infect plants with viruses that protect against such dangers. The State Department said the project is for peaceful purposes and does not violate the Biological Weapons Convention. The U.S. Department of Agriculture said its scientists are part of the research, which is being conducted in contained labs. The technology could work in different ways. In the first phase, aphids -- tiny bugs that feed by sucking sap from plants -- infected plants with a virus that temporarily brought about a trait. But researchers are also trying to see if viruses can alter the plant's genes themselves to be resistant to dangers throughout the plant's life.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Military Program Could Be Seen As a Bioweapon, Scientists Warn More

US Military Program Could Be Seen As a Bioweapon, Scientists Warn

Comments Filter:

  • A mouse corpse is a bio weapon (Score:4, Interesting)

    by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Friday October 05, 2018 @08:12AM (#57430636)

    Anything might be a bio weapon. this is a bit bonkers. Just as any high energy physics, rocketry, encryption algorithm, or computer could be a weapon and probably is.

    • Re:A mouse corpse is a bio weapon (Score:4, Funny)

      by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday October 05, 2018 @08:27AM (#57430712)

      Anything might be a bio weapon. this is a bit bonkers. Just as any high energy physics, rocketry, encryption algorithm, or computer could be a weapon and probably is.

      On a few occasions, I think my farts were just that.

    • Why do we constantly keep trying to FUCK with the food supply?

      This is critical to our lives, and I'm a bit concerned with we try to fsck with mother nature a bit too much too FAST.

      One really bad mistake using vectors like this and well, it could wipe out the planets food sources potentially.

      "Nature finds a way"...as I seem to have heard mentioned before.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nutria ( 679911 )

        Think of it this way: quick cure for overpopulation.

        • I don't think this generation's goal ought to be to drive the population to zero. Sure, as a nation, we hardly ever meet our goals, but what if some of us are overachievers?

      • Why do we constantly keep trying to FUCK with the food supply?

        Yeah! We should just keep using the same things we've been using since Sumer and Tyre were a big deal! There's no reason at all to suppose we can, well, improve crop yields or anything.

        Do note that, absent the improvements made in crops since I was born, we'd be having mass famines now. Seven billion people aren't going to be fed with the crops of the 1940's, much less those of the 1840's....

        • Or the world population wouldn't have grown as fast.

        • Do note that, absent the improvements made in crops since I was born, we'd be having mass famines now. Seven billion people aren't going to be fed with the crops of the 1940's, much less those of the 1840's....

          I"m not terribly concerned that we cannot grow enough food for ourselves in the US, without all the new GMO's, pesticides and now....genetic insects modifying our foods.

          Since when did the US have 7 billion citizens to worry about?

          It isn't our responsibility too feed and otherwise support the whole

          • Re: (Score:3)

            by gnick ( 1211984 )

            It isn't our responsibility too feed and otherwise support the whole world.

            Some people don't like the idea of human starvation, even if it's not their responsibility. For some reason they care about people they've never even met. Damned bleeding-hearts.

      • So we can feed more people?

        I mean, have you looked at the wild/original/natural variants of "bananas" or "wheat" or "corn"? Notice how much less food is on that food.

        Don't get me wrong, I understand the concern. And the fact that one of the biggest players in the field is a poster-child for cyberpunk dystopian megacorporations is more than a little concerning. And this time is a little different thanks to the expanded scope of possibilities and increased rate of change that modern genetic engineering pro

      • Why do we constantly keep trying to FUCK with the food supply?

        Because the population of our planet has grown way, way beyond what can be fed by traditional means. Famine and starvation have been greatly reduced within the last couple of decades due to new technologies in food production.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Sure, a pointed stick and an atom bomb are both weapons. But the fact that the same word can be used to describe both of them doesn't mean that you should treat them equivalently.

      As a weapon, this one would have more negative side-effects than an atom bomb, and the explanation that they're doing this to somehow protect our crops from other countries' biological weapons doesn't pass the sniff test. If there were some general, broad-spectrum means of protecting crops from any possible disease, that'd be qui

      • "As a weapon, this one would have more negative side-effects than an atom bomb, and the explanation that they're doing this to somehow protect our crops from other countries' biological weapons doesn't pass the sniff test."

        Exactly. Frankly I'd be less alarmed if they were trying to develop this as an offensive weapon. The military genetically modifying domestic plants to produce... just about anything they wish chemically, and that includes heirloom plants. Sounds like a sci-fi nightmare to me.

        Consider the

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

        ....the explanation that they're doing this to somehow protect our crops from other countries' biological weapons doesn't pass the sniff test. If there were some general, broad-spectrum means of protecting crops from any possible disease, that'd be quite an accomplishment.

        A general broad-spectrum means to protect crops from disease, like harnessing a wide-ranging pervasive insect to deliver a counter-measure to acres of vital croplands? Yeah, that would be quite an accomplishment.

        This sounds like a perfect example of science/technology that is slightly far-fetched and high risk, but with high potential public benefit that the US gov't should be doing to lay the groundwork until private industry can run with it. (See also: nuclear power, GPS, solar cells, battery technology,

      • Hanta virus still killing people as does anthrax.

        Small pox, malaria killed more people in the Americas than lived in all the rest of the world

        it's not a pointed stick. Disease has killed more people than atom bombs.

        But that's not a good reason to say no medical research

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          It is a good reason to be careful about research into methods for infecting people.

  • ...on the incoming number of "welcoming our insect overlords" jokes?

  • Old news much? (Score:3)

    by Dallas May ( 4891515 ) on Friday October 05, 2018 @08:59AM (#57430830)

    Is this a headline from the 1980's?

    Seriously. This is literally the same conspiracy theory the Soviets believed the US was doing in the 1980's. It was even a featured story line in the tv show "the Americans".

    • I guess for there to be any chance that this is valid, it needs to be a fresh accusation... because there's no chance that alleged programs like this might have been in existence for a while.

      Either that, or you need to figure out what you were trying to imply.

      • There is no chance that alleged programs like this have been "in existence for a while". You know why? Because people would be involved. Lots of people. And sooner or later someone would be talking about their work on making super-weevils on the internet. That's the biggest logical flaw with conspiracy theories. It's not that conspiracies don't exist, but that it's impossible to keep people quiet about them.

        If this conspiracy program had existed since the 1980's it would not be a theory. We would know about

  • This is just a basic research project (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday October 05, 2018 @09:12AM (#57430884)
    on crop yields pretending to be a "military" project because Americans won't pay for anything that isn't "Defense". Norm Chomsky talked about this, the video's still up on Youtube somewhere. When Reagan hit and began slashing fed money in order to fund his tax cuts the only way to get any basic research done was to find a reason why it was "Defense" spending, since that's a sacred cow here.

    Christ but we Americans do a lot of silly things...

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      Reagan didn't slash fed money to fund his tax cuts. In fact, he got taken to the cleaners by Tip O'Neill who promised to cut expenditures but didn't. Reagan initially thought he could cut fed money for research but ultimately that never happened because some of the programs he wanted required basic research. So stop making shit up. And relying on Noam Chomsky isn't a point in your favor.

      Now the current and fake president probably will result in lower R&D spending outside of DoD. The only way he'll succe

      • who had rings run around him by the Republicans. He was chair when the Republicans began their strategy of "Obstruct anything the Dems want and wreck the country to make them look bad". Tip had no response to that because it was an entirely new kind of politics. One that didn't give a rat's ass about the consequences for the country so long as the party and it's mega-rich donors were taking care of. It's Kleptocracy of the worst sort. Once that started there wasn't a damn thing Tip or the Dems could do.
    • That is certainly true enough. Most government money into research is funneled through the defense budget. It isn't just Reagan, we saw how well it worked for the Nazi's.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

        ...worked for the Nazi's.

        Godwin argument = fail. The poor grammar is the icing on your loser cake.

        • I didn't compare anyone to Nazi's... our government literally saw that funneling research funding through the military worked well for the Nazi's who undoubtedly produced some of the most advanced technology in the world in their day. We and the Russian's both stole their ideas along with their scientists.
    • Yet again, with nothing but harsh criticism, and nothing positive to say. You wonder why people tune out the Left these days?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ranbot ( 2648297 )

      on crop yields pretending to be a "military" project because Americans won't pay for anything that isn't "Defense"....the only way to get any basic research done was to find a reason why it was "Defense" spending... Christ but we Americans do a lot of silly things...

      ^ Yeah, basically.
      The Department of Defense does a lot pure science and tech research that isn't always about killing people, and even the "deadly" research can have high civilian value. Drones can shoot missiles or survey land for development. Nuclear energy can power bombs, submarines and aircraft carriers, or civilian carbon-free power plants. Radar can track enemy missiles or help keep commercial airplanes from crashing in mid-air. GPS can aim bombs or give people directions on road trip. Robots can swe

  • "How dare you risk making our plants more resilient?"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Calydor ( 739835 )

      It's not making the plants more resilient that's the problem.

      It's step 2 which sounds something like, "Okay, and now we make them POISONOUS."

    • First of all, what limits them to their stated objective... not just today, anyone from ever using this for something other than making plants more resilient? Even making plants more resilient is an issue because plant genetics tend to get spread around.
  • If you're able to do something better than someone else, there's probably a way to weaponize that.

  • You can build a house with it or bash someones brains in with the exact same hammer.

    Does that make it a weapon and not a tool?

  • Insects infecting plants with viruses

    What could POSSIBLY go wrong???

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close