Army Issues New Regulations on “Biological Surety”
U.S. Army personnel who act in an aggressive or threatening manner towards other people would be denied access to toxic or lethal biological agents under newly revised regulations (pdf) that were issued by the Army last week.
Other potentially disqualifying personality traits include: “arrogance, inflexibility, suspiciousness, hostility,… and extreme moods or mood swings,” according to the new regulations. See “Biological Surety,” Army Regulation 50-1, 28 July 2008.
The late Fort Detrick scientist Dr. Bruce E. Ivins retained his security clearance and his laboratory access through July 10, the Washington Post reported today, despite allegations of erratic behavior and the fact that he was under FBI suspicion in connection with the 2001 anthrax attacks. The credibility of some of those allegations regarding Ivins’ behavior, however, is itself open to question, writes Glenn Greenwald in Salon today.
“One thing became increasingly clear: AI doesn’t simply introduce a new category of risk. It changes the speed, scale, complexity, and interaction of risks that already exist.”
In an ideal world, we would not have state or federal climate intervention research bans. We would have researchers and institutions that would not shy away from revealing the good, the bad, and the ugly of these technologies and doing so responsibly.
“What excites me is that it’s very tempting to be very discouraged, and say, ‘Oh, we’ve got these archaic institutions that are calcified and you could never change them.’ But I think we’re in the middle of a technological revolution that will upend lots of things, and does provide a window.”
Ask people what worries them most right now, and they’ll say the cost of living and their livelihoods, not climate change. But those concerns are not separate.