If it’s true that Dr. Bruce Ivins, a biodefense researcher at the Army’s Medical Research Center on Infectious Diseases in Frederick, Maryland, orchestrated the 2001 anthrax attacks to further his own career and funnel more federal funding toward the study of his speciality, anthrax– and to himself– it perfectly illustrates what I have previously said about the negative effects of federal scientific funding.
This is an aspect of governmental incompetence I hadn’t previously considered, but it was just a matter of time until something like this happened, when scientists now regularly become government employees– Bruce Ivins had spent his entire career in an Army lab. Scientists want power just as much as anyone (read Cantor’s Dilemma for a nicely fictionalized explanation of this), and anyone who’s dealt with, say, a secretary in the local parking department may be aware that government employees often get full of themselves and drunk on their own power.
According to The New York Times:
The work became even more intense in the aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attack, as the field grew tremendously, with billions of dollars in new federal support for research on anthrax and other potential biological weapons and to buy new drugs or vaccines to handle a possible future attack.
Dr. Ivins was among the scientists who benefited from this surge, as 14 of the 15 academic papers he published since late 2001 were focused on possible anthrax treatments or vaccines, comparing the effectiveness of different formulations. He even worked on the investigation of the anthrax attacks, although this meant that he, like other scientists at the Army’s defensive biological laboratory at Fort Detrick, Md., was scrutinized as a possible suspect.
Sure, it’s possible that a maniac could do a similar thing to get more private industry funding into science or patent royalties. However, at least it wouldn’t be taxpayer dollars wasted for the purpose.
(Of course, it took the FBI four years and cost taxpayers $6 million from a lawsuit before the right guy was found, but that’s another story altogether.)
The anthrax scare was created as an excuse to install mail surveillance.
60-70% of the CIA and NSA budgets are paid to private contractors, some of them are corrupt.
When Hatfill wouldn’t fall they pinned it on Ivins.
The harassment Ivins endured are classic CIA / NSA tactics to discredit, disgrace and destroy. It reads like a bad remake of Arlington Road.
Happiness Hacker
August 2nd, 2008
Of course, I’m open to the idea of anything and you can certainly never put anything past our various government agencies.
However, in order for this to be a government conspiracy where Ivins was innocent, his psychiatrist and social worker would have to both be in on it saying that he has homicidal tendencies.
And if Ivins was really some sort of patsy set up by the powers that be, wouldn’t they have just arrested him and put him on trial seven years ago when everyone was scared to death of what was going through the mail? Now everyone’s pretty much forgotten about it and it’s not nearly as big a story as it would have been back then.
If anything, I found the most damning evidence for Ivins’ guilt to be the fact that even though it seems almost all evidence pointed to him, the government DIDN’T focus on him for six years or so. That’s just how it would work– Ivins probably tried to redirect their attention toward Hatfull while he basked in the glory of the world’s newfound need for his anthrax knowledge. It’s certainly not like Lee Harvey Oswald who was set up from the beginning as a patsy (if you think he was).
libertariangirl
August 2nd, 2008
I strongly agree that Ivins shouldn’t have had access to Ft Dietrich or similar facilities. I suspect that privacy laws interfered with the ability to do a good job of a security check on him. He most likely obtained his security clearance many years ago and has since been thought “safe”. His friends at Ft Dietrich appear to have missed the thought that had the system not worked as well as it did many of them would be dead, wounded or badly traumatized. It sounds to me as tho they have a case of “it can’t happen here”. This man left clear evidence of mass murder about to happen. Whether or not he has done it previously, in the 2001 anthrax incidents, well, we’re all interested in hearing the evidence. THANK GOD for the actions of his therapist in reporting what she did. Wouldn’t it have been better if the system had worked so that some of the other mass murders we’ve seen recently had been stopped before they happened? My son was a student at De Anza at the point when a murderous student was building bombs and by chance was stopped before he could set them off. We all have a responsibility to act to save others when we see evidence such as this. The right to privacy does not incude plotting murder.
Jan
August 3rd, 2008
No doubt the national focus on this case will generate another wave of protest against BSL3 & BSL4 research, and an outcry for their regulation. However, it is critical that these labs are not “regulated” - threatened with fines or closure for past deficits - by reporting to an external bureaucratic agency.
Instead, these mission-critical labs need a dynamic, state-of-the-art “Commission” defining and sharing “best practices” for world-class process & education support. Then, instead of concealing deficits from regulators for fear of losing funding, they be will supported to define and implement “the next generation” of industry quality & processes so as to be able secure the most prestigious projects.
These “best practices” could have secured these labs in 2001; immediately alerted officials of after-hours, suspicious activity; and, provided six-sigma, real-time verification of inventory. And, such measures are now even more mission-critical to support the safe and effective work of these labs for world-wide public health and national defense against future biological attacks.
Marshall Maglothin
August 3rd, 2008