Rogue Science - Free Speech or Terror Threat?

What Dys said.

I am torn up the middle on this. It seems to me, that although people are entitled to put what they wish on the web, I question whether this is the most auspicious time to do it.

The way the world is today, I would personally not want such sites on the web. Not only because of the terrorists, who can always find way to get information. I am much more concerned about the nutjob copycats, who would use these unsettled times to get their jollies!

I couldn't agree more Phoenix.

First of all little or anything that I saw on that site, and admittedly I did not see all of it, is rogue science. Rather it is rogue technology, and there is a difference. I can also see the underlying point of the site. Science is a way of understanding the world, a philosophy if you wish, and you do not need a Ph.d to do it. Although Ph.d's generally do it better. The underlying assumption of science is it's functionality. and the social status of the individual engaging in it has no bearing on the results. It makes no difference if the scientist is puttering in his basement, has a part time adjunct position at East Cupcake Agi and Tech. or a tenured position at Harvard. If the insight works and can be reproduced by others, that's all that matters. Science works best when the thinking of scientists is broadcast as widely as possible, and as many people as possible are engaged in it. That is why scientists have traditionally published their results in journals available to as wide an audience as possible. That said, the originator of this site seems to have a skewed vision of what science is and is more interested in things that go boom. So I can also understand Phoenix'x concerns.

I go with Phoenix,

I certainly don't want this stuff on the web.

I certainly don't want anybody censoring the web.

There is no free lunch.

I would rather have a web with porn sites and explosive recipes than have one that our leader is able to make safe.

So as usual

I suppose it's not on the web anymore. I keep getting a big forbidden page.

I came across this discussion while doing a search on Rogue Science being linked by certain nefarious websites... Apparently the site's account has been suspended by US Dept. of Defense order.

If you are wondering, I am a member on E&W. I am very upset not only that this site has been taken down, but by the gross misinterpretation I'm seeing of it here. This isn't a site about, "How to make things go boom" and "How to blow stuff up!" It's a discussion board for hobbyists, not terrorists. Even chemistry enthusiasts enjoy discussions there on poison gas and explosives--subjects that are taboo on my straitlaced science forums, where the discussions revolve around theory more than practice. If people on E&W synthesize explosives and toxic chemicals, they never do it to harm anyone else--they do it for their own pleasure. It's kinda like setting off 4th of July bottle rockets and cherry bombs--does that make you a terrorist? However, as you see, they just do it with 10 kg of high explosive on a beach, with a danger only to the operator.

This is no "accessory for terror," and that assertion is very irksome to me. Terrorist bombings have been happening since before the days of E&W. Aum Shinrikyo didn't need Megalomania's Sarin synthesis. So with or without E&W there will be terror. And on that note, there is a good deal of innovation at E&W related to syntheses and construction tips, but not all of it comes from the members' minds.

My estimate is that 90% of what they post, they grabbed from some other resource--Organic Chemistry textbooks, science journals, etc. Maybe a news story caused the lighbulb to turn on their heads, and they post an idea, at which point it is developed by other members. If a terrorist wants to use that site to help build a bomb, is it the website's fault? Such an assertion is absolutely absurd.

As for me, I'm sick of censoring literature--I don't care what it has in it. The War Gases was published in 1929 as public literature. There were no terrorist attacks using chemical weapons as a result--and that book details very clearly the syntheses of dozens of Chemical Agents. And don't even start with, "terrorism wasn't a problem in the 1930's." Terrorism has ALWAYS existed--9/11 wasn't the start of terror, and terror didn't suddenly get worse after 9/11. 9/11 was just a slap in the face to America and a wake-up call, not the "start." There was a bombing on Wallstreet in the 1920s, Alexander II of Russia was assassinated by suicide bombers, there was an assassination attempt on Woodrow Wilson following the German surrender in WWI.

If a terrorist wants to use that site to help build a bomb, is it the website's fault? Such an assertion is absolutely absurd. If you're going to ban E&W, why not ban the resources that were cited on E&W? Why not ban books like Vogel's Practical Organic Chemistry or Morrison & Boyde Organic Chemistry, or War Gases, or that book on Organophosphates by Bernard Saunders?

We could have a whole list of banned and subversive literature! Hell, we could restrict science journals to only those involved in the field. We could give our kids a half-assed science curriculum in school, so they never THINK about such things. Is this what we want?? How much are we willing to sacrifice to the Government to fight an overblown terror threat? Since when has a government proved it can be trusted when it confiscates any reasonable liberties?? Is this how free speech and a free press looks to you?

I didn't get to see the site, but if it was what is claimed here, I agree with samosa. Unless there was specific reference to terrorist apparatus and devices / advice, I DO NOT want the government censoring the internet.

I saw a book in Borders earlier this year that was all about making various drugs like heroin, crack, meth, etc. Details on growing pot. Complete hardback with full color illustrations (over 250 pages!) right there in the bin at the front of the store. It appeared dangerous to me. Perhaps I should have alerted the government, but I figured whoever bought it would be known by Ashcroft soon enough.

Too bad they took down the rogue science site.

The site has been discontinued.

Here's a hypothetical question, sort of a thought experiment, and I don't think that anyone here can say authoritatively that it isn't possible.

Hypothetically, suppose it were discovered how to make antimatter in sufficient quantity to end life on Earth. It wouldn't take much antimatter to produce that effect, since an explosion produced by matter/antimatter annihilation is many, many times more powerful than any atomic bomb. The relevant equation is actually E = mc^2. Suppose a process were discovered by which anyone with a few million dollars and a few good physicists could do it. What would you like to see happen with the knowledge?

Or more generally, assume that someone discovered a way to do something with technology which, anyone with a few million dollars could do, which would likely kill all higher life forms on Earth. What would be appropriate to do with such knowledge?

It really depends on how that information was discovered Brandon. There are government and military secrets that are not posted online, and they shouldn't be. I'm not saying EVERYTHING must be made public. However, if the information is in a public patent and mentioned in numerous books, then why shouldn't you be allowed to talk about it?

In the case of Rogue Science, the discussion revolved only around public knowledge and extensions from such knowledge. However, the question you asked is rather loaded and the scenario highly extreme. In such a case, I don't think that kind of information would be made public in any form.

If one were interested, they could easily find resources to build a Hydrogen Bomb. But why hasn't anyone? Because it is too difficult to do so secretly and there are controls on the resources. The same thing applies for Chemical Weapons--sure, they're very easy to make. You can make them in your garage if you'd like. But try making them in quantities to use in an actual attack--you'll have the FBI, DEA, and EPA at your house before your precursors arrive. The same thing would apply to this hypothetical situation... You might have the instructions to make antimatter, but chances are there will be some limiting, tightly watched and regulated factor that will stop you.

"There is no bad knowledge, only how it is used can be bad," to quote Planet of the Apes

I asked the reader to imagine that some technology was discovered which could be implemented by anyone with a few million dollars and access to a few good physicists (or perhaps biologists in the more general version I ended with), so in order to answer my question, you have to conform to my premise.

You say that the question is loaded and the scenario highly extreme. Are you asserting that the scenario could never happen? An assertion that my hypothetical situation is completely impossible is a valid criticism. However, if the situation I painted could happen, then there is no basis for saying that the question cannot properly be asked.

I simply said it was extreme, not that it couldn't properly be asked. It's similar to asking, "Would you support aborting an 8 month old pregnancy because the woman decided she didn't want a baby anymore?" Not an impossible situation, although highly extreme. Again, this is called a loaded question.

Anyhow, I did take the time to answer it . If the technology was put in a public patent and details of it released to science journals, then we can't limit what people talk about without effectively curtailing freedom of speech (something that in the US is held very dearly). However, if it is a military technology (most likely would be in any case since they are the ones most interested in destruction) then it would NOT be released to the public and there are special laws protecting such secrets.

But using the example of existing WMD technology--Nuclear, Biological and Chemical--we maybe have the know-how to build such things but we don't have access to the resources. So if such a wild scenario as the one you imagine occurred and the knowledge was available to the public, the problem could be easily mitigated by simply placing tight restrictions on the necessary equipment/precursors to do it. So simply knowing how to do something does not mean you will do it. I know how to stab someone with a knife, but I don't think I will. Trying to outlaw its mention or discussion is not going to make the problem go away because the true problem is in restrictions of the resources. If anything, the kind of discussion that takes place on the Explosives & Weapons Forum ALERTS security agencies to potential threats. Madmen and terrorists wanting to carry out attacks don't post their plans in advance on online forums. And similarly, they don't need them to carry out an attack anyway.

And that's my answer.

That's an intelligent answer, but please bear in mind that I am hypothesizing a scenario in which if anyone, anywhere manages to build the device even once - ever - life on Earth ends. Surely the enormity of the consequences have to affect the answer. Also, the this technology might or might not depend on resources unusual enough to be able to be controlled. I would not really be surprised if at some time in the future, perhaps centuries or millenia in the future, some technique came into existence such that one single application of it would be deadly to the species.

Although you have clarified to me that you did not really challenge my right to ask the question, or the legitimacy of the question, I might add that law professors are fond, I am told, of posing extreme hypothetical scenarios for students to promote exploration of an idea. They apparently find it a useful tool, and so do I.

"I asked the reader to imagine that some technology was discovered which could be implemented by anyone with a few million dollars and access to a few good physicists (or perhaps biologists in the more general version I ended with), so in order to answer my question, you have to conform to my premise. "

The technology was discovered hundreds of years ago, and anyone with £5 and an alcohol lamp can implement it. I have implemented it, out of curiosity. Details of the technology are widely distributed in the public domain. True, it couldn't have ended life on earth, but if I was insane I could have made a primitive WMD. And I didn't even break any laws.
You should also bear in mind that if you take ten terrorists and give them ten knives, then the threat from such knowledge pales into complete insignificance.
I totally understand the opinions of many, who see such websites as inappropriate, but they must realise that their existence changes nothing. As Samosa said, all the information is freely available anyway. It's just nice to be able to chat about your hobby with like-minded individuals.
Most of what we discuss is totally useless to potential terrorists, anyway. It's too complicated and too expensive. Remember, the world trade centre was smashed to the ground essentially using craft-knives. Terrorists don't care about novel tetrazole-based primaries, or how to add 3% to their yield of RDX.
The only people that such knowledge will hurt are the people who use it. I myself still have several pieces of shrapnel in my hand from when I was learning the art, and I'm still doing it. Why? Because it's fun . Everyone likes fireworks, and you can make them much bigger and better if you make them yourself!

Unfortunately, due to the content of the site, it does attract idiots, but we try to ban them as soon as possible. We are at least only sharing the knowledge with people who have enough common sense to use it relatively safely.

I'd like to add that I am currently studying chemistry with biochemistry at Cambridge university, and I certainly would not be there if it were not for the fact that I started playing with pyrotechnics at an early age.

Since you begin by quoting me, I would like to emphasize that my question applied specifically to a technique such that one single application would end life on Earth, or at least the lives of higher life forms. I asked what ought to be done with such knowledge. Certainly the ability to manufacture antimatter in any significant macroscopic quantity would have exactly this effect, but I am sure that man can eventually come up with other technologies just as destructive of life.

Any one doing an experiment involving more than one gram of antimatter must make full public disclosure before, during and reveal the conclusions and possible conclusions. They go to jail if they fail to disclose (assuming they and a jail survive the experiment) Neil

That is interesting. Where does this law appear? Of course, a gram would be sufficient to make quite a bang. I am pretty sure that no one can make anything remotely approaching a gram yet, though.

It is already apparent that experiments using more than one gram of antimater and experiments in artificial gene modification have potential for big trouble. We can make the list and pass the law now and add to the list as other incredibly dangerous exoperiments seem probable in our future. We don't have to wait for an incident. But let's not go nuts and require full public disclosure for every experiment envolving a ton or more of ammonium nitrate. More than 2 tons perhaps. Neil