Editor, Daily Nexus,
In attempting to portray the more than 500 protesters who partially shut down the Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies annual conference on Tuesday, Feb. 12 as impulsive and confused, Scott A. Heimerman (“Proper Protests Do Background Checks,” Daily Nexus, Feb. 14) projects his own deep personal confusion onto a group of people who, by contrast, had a clear and well-researched objective. The protesters sought to prevent an institution contributing to unthinkable levels of death and destruction from meeting on their campus. They accomplished exactly that goal.
Heimerman offers no documentary evidence for his mind-boggling conclusion: “Research conducted by ICB is mostly medical in nature.” Instead, he seems to take this fanciful notion on faith from a conversation with the harried ICB director, Daniel Morse.
In stark contrast to Heimerman, a large number of the anti-war protesters have put considerable effort into discerning what the ICB actually does, including its precise technical functions vis-a-vis War in Iraq. Hence, we have actually read what Morse has written.
In an article he co-authored for the October-December 2007 edition of the Army magazine, Army AL&T — available at http://tinyurl.com/2o5cnp — Morse contextualized the ICB’s purpose as follows: “The development of Future Combat systems will require components that are smaller, lighter and safer, yet more lethal than current systems.” Oh, but I’m sure the ICB’s focus on making combat systems more “lethal” will help cure AIDS and cancer, won’t it, Dr. Morse?
We who oppose the presence of war-related research on our campus have compiled a comprehensive overview of how UCSB is a decisive cog in the U.S. war machine. We are in the process of distributing it on campus en masse.
If you are interested in more information on the ICB and other militarized research at UCSB, please visit www.fiatpax.net, where this pamphlet will soon be available.
Facts
I love how the author of the above article took the quote completely out of context to try and prove his non-exsistant point. Please read the link he provides and you will see that ICB is creating medical related products, batteries, infared detectors, and suction cups. No bullets. No bombs. They make things that keep people alive.
Out of context? Not by a mile.>I love how the author of the above article took the quote completely out of context to try and prove his non-exsistant point. Please read the link he provides and you will see that ICB is creating medical related products, Not sure why mib918 thinks the quote is out of context. Seems entirely germane to me, perhaps mib918 can explain. Or how about: "The ICB’s mission is to use the tools of modern biotechnology to discover the mechanisms responsible for the remarkably high performance of complex biological systems and translate these into revolutionary advances… Read more »
protestI think the whole protest doesn’t have a direction, regardless of the truth behind ICB. However, I love how nobody has addressed the fact that the protesters have ruined some parts of campus with their stupid sticker advertisements – which I consider visual pollution. They even covered the signs across from the chemistry building which say to not drink the reclaimed water – now somebody, an underpaid UCSB worker – has got to clean this up ! Remember last year when people sprayed graffiti on university garbage cans to advertise the war? Great way to get the university to waste… Read more »
Proper Research?My name is Scott Heimerman, and I wrote an article that was published under the title (“Proper Protests Do Background Checks,” Daily Nexus, Feb. 14). Garth Lasse, in his letter to the editor "Students Put Considerable Research into ICB Protest," relates to the public about his knowledge of my "deep personal confusion." His basis for his intimate knowledge of me is that I "fancifully" accepted claims made by the director of the ICB as truth without conducting "proper research," whereas he and the protestors have. If Mr. Lasse had decided to properly research his own erroneous claims and arguments… Read more »
Combat SystemsInteresting. If you go to the UCSB ICB website you will find all manner of neutral, weapons-free scientific language describing the institute’s research objectives. But If you read the Army AL&T ("Acquisition, Logistics and Technology") article co-authored by Prof. Morse found at http://tinyurl.com/2o5cnp, you will discover (emphasis added) that: * "The ICB’s working mission is highly collaborative and FOCUSED ON ARMY NEEDS". * The ICB is meeting the "challenge" of developing "FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEMS" requiring components that are "smaller, lighter and safer yet MORE LETHAL than current systems". * Dr. Morse "has partnered with ARL’s Infrared Materials & Devices… Read more »
militarywhile i am against research which pertains to weaponry applications of technology, you can not say that military research has always had military applications or that civilian research has led to military applciations. take for example, jet engines. the nazis were working on jet engines so that their fighter aircraft could have an edge in speed during the second world war two – now imagine a world where there are no jet engines ! Or let us say that jet engines were discovered for civilian use – it would be used by militaries in no time ! the point is,… Read more »
konijn: You say that you are "against research which pertains to weaponry applications of technology". This would presumably include the work being done by the ICB, since Dr. Morse and his co-author have explicitly stated that the ICB is involved in developing "combat systems" (their phrase) involving components that are "more lethal" (again, their own phrase) than current systems. Regarding Heisenberg: are you saying that, if he was involved in developing nuclear weapons for the Nazis, it would have been short-sighted for people of conscience to oppose his research in light of possible civilian spillovers? There are some interesting hints… Read more »
re: missing title
(Editor: I beleive I may have forgotten to give a title to my most recent submission to this thread. Perhaps "Heisenberg, Then and Now" would be a reasonable title, if you need one.)
eyerag: I like how you singled out Werner Heisenburg among my examples. I mentioned Einstein as well – he was involved in the development of an atomic bomb which killed 210,000 Japanese. Mustard gas was synthesized by a variety of organic chemists in the 1800’s and was never synthesized as part of a military program during that time – well, guess what? It was eventually used in war. The synthesis of mustard gas is arguably an important step in the development of early organic chemistry. I think that nearly everything discovered has a military application. What if ICB is developing… Read more »
Question for konijnkonijn: A direct question: A couple of posts back, you said you are "against research which pertains to weaponry applications of technology". Dr. Morse and his co-author explicitly stated that the ICB is involved in developing "combat systems" involving components that are "more lethal" than current systems. This from an article peppered with pictures of soldiers decked out in full-dress battle gear participating in combat exercises. Would it not then be a reasonable inference that research on "weaponry applications of technology" is precisely what the ICB doing? And that you yourself should oppose this research, along with the… Read more »
policy!!Arguably the most important phrase in this thread: "I think you are better off attacking the politicians responsible for the lethal use of military power than harassing scientists who are interested in furthering their research." eyerag, no one is saying that the destructive applications of technologies are good, but research is not inherently bad. Humans have to make choices. We choose to turn our knowledge into a bomb. We choose to send our army into Iraq. We, as UCSB students, can choose to accept the ICB or not, but as everyone knows, not all well intentioned choices have positive consequences.… Read more »