Emerging Viruses-Aids & Ebola - By Leanard ... - preterhuman.net

A boycott ensued that was believed to be unparalleled in the"stormy history of relationships between the military and thescientific cornrnunity." [4]Science news reported:"At least 16 scientists refused to give papers at a Detricksponsoredsymposium on nucleic acids as part of a halfspontaneous,half organized protest against the use of science fordestructive military purposes. Some scientists rejected Detrick'sinvitation shortly after it was received; others accepted theinvitation, but then, after receiving letters and calls from theircolleagues, decided to withdraw. Four scientists even withdrewafter the final program had been printed, thus forcing Detrick torearrange the program at the last minute.""Pickets marched outside Detrick's main gate carrying signs thatproclaimed "Fort Detrick IS NOT a Respectable ScientificInstitution" and "Fort Detrick Scientists are Prostitutes." One signasked "Want to Get Sick? Consult Your Local Physician at FortDetrick"; and several signs were decorated with drawings ofskulls." [4]Mark Ptashne, a Harvard graduate researcher, declined on thegrounds that he found Detrick's work "highly repellant" and did"not want my name associated with Fort Detrick." Dean Fraser, aprofessor of microbiology at Indiana University, balked atcelebrating research conducted in an effort to develop BW. Hewrote in declining his invitation, "It seems at best a little likecommemorating the creation of the electric chair and at worstlike celebrating the establishment of Dachau." [4]Even some AIBS officials appealed the event. Dr. John Allen anda group of AIBS board members published a clarification noticein 'Science' citing their principal concerns:"It is not appropriate nor proper for an organization representinga large segment of the biological community to activelyparticipate in a celebration honoring 25 years of biological andchemical warfare research. . . . It is not proper for AIBS to lendits name and prestige to this celebration indirectly conveying theimpression that AIBS actively favors this aspect of DefenseDepartment activity. . . . The essential issue is a moral one. . . ."[5]World consensus among physicians and scientists was much thesame.Calling Fort DetrickConsidering that the symposium papers on the "entry andcontrol of foreign nucleic acid" might hold important