No subject

Abigail and I would like to expand the scope of Eric’s talking points 
to cover additional areas related to the role of academics (not just 
the University) in combating bioterrorism:

(1) Premise: Dissemination of accurate/expert information was a 
serious problem during the recent acts of bioterrorism. The media, 
policy makers, government officials, and the general public were and 
still are grossly undereducated in understanding science issues, the 
nature of scientific endeavor, and how to cope with imposed health 
threat(s). A primary source of confusion that was experienced stemmed 
from the lack of a network of national and local experts that could 
be called upon to provide accurate, unbiased information that was 
comprehensible to the majority of the population. Municipalities, 
universities, and other agencies need to assess their ability to 
respond to disease outbreaks, to disseminate accurate and 
comprehensible information, and to clarify procedures for 
implementation of a response: identification of problem, isolation 
and containment of the threat, and assessment of the need for law 
enforcement involvement. When confronted with terrifying conditions, 
the general public needs to have reassurances from authorities that 
the situation is under control or is at least being dealt with in the 
most appropriate and responsible manner and with the best interests 
of the public in mind. They need to be confident that the persons 
relaying the information are experts and that experts are advising 
the authorities.

(2) Premise: Improving science education of the general public will 
be a major factor in reducing the "fear factor" that results not only 
from acts of bioterrorism, but also from naturally occurring 
biological threats, such as AIDS, food-borne diseases, and cancer. As 
science educators, we are obligated to contribute to improving public 
understanding of relevant scientific issues. Public education needs 
to begin with a strong science foundation at the K-12 level. 
Educational outreach programs through the university could be 
implemented to enhance the level of scientific knowledge of K-12 
teachers, which could in turn be passed on to the children. Training 
programs could be implemented to prepare law enforcement and public 
health officials, as well as disaster relieve and emergency 
responders, to recognize serious health threats or deliberate acts of 
bioterrorism, to collect appropriate evidence for apprehension of the 
perpetrators, and to contain/control the spread of infectious disease.

(3) Premise: Censorship of scientific endeavor poses a serious threat 
to the advancement of scientific knowledge and overall enhancement of 
our national leadership in science and technology. There is a large 
difference between monitoring scientific research and restricting or 
prohibiting such academic activity. Part of the problem comes from a 
misconception by policy makers about what scientists do, how science 
is conducted, and why it is important for scientists to have freedom 
to explore ideas and questions without cumbersome restrictions. In 
narrowly defining the areas of research that are acceptable by 
limiting research funds to specific targets or restricting research 
on certain targets to a limited number of laboratories, policy makers 
and funding agencies are suppressing the creativity of scientists and 
hampering the innovation that results from exploring different areas, 
but which is necessary in order to make significant strides in 
scientific advancement.
--
----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
rosemary braun :: theoretical biophysics, univ. illinois :: braun at uiuc.edu  
encrypt : my pgp public key is available via keyserver http://pgp.mit.edu/