Bill Joy in NYT: require insurance for risky research
Senior Associate JohnHeron writes "In an article from NYT Magazine written by Jon Gertner, Bill Joy, of Sun, vi and BSD fame, continued his warnings against the dangers of unfettered research and access to information in nanotech and biotech research. Joy believes that high risk research should be regulated. "He says he believes that businesses doing research in areas deemed risky by their peers should be forced to take out insurance against catastrophes. He also says that science guilds should have the authority to limit access to potentially dangerous ideas. 'Perhaps some knowledge won't be made public,' Joy says. 'Perhaps there would be secrets. You know, you couldn't just get the code to the plague or the flu if you wanted it.' " JohnHeron writes "In an article from this past weekends NYT Magazine, written by Jon Gertner, Bill Joy, of Sun, vi and BSD fame, continued his his warnings against the dangers of unfettered research and access to information in nanotech and biotech research. Joy believes that high risk research should be regulated. "Good science, he says, is the discovery of truth — for example, an experiment that yields an accurate result and that is repeatable. But science may not be good for us anymore if it yields a bad outcome. 'The Greeks knew better,' Joy says. 'Oedipus was destroyed by truth. He looked like he had a happy life until he learned one too many things. That's the cautionary tale.'"
Joy left Sun last year as Chief Scientist after 21 years of being the driving force behind many of Sun's successes with no definite plans. Behind him lay a legacy symbolized by the 900 pounds of professional papers and 20 file cabinets containing his personal records he took with him on leaving. Splitting his time between Marin and Aspen, Joy has only showed another side to his public personality as consummate Silicon Valley technologist and entrepreneur. Indeed he has indicated that when the right opportunity presents itself, one where his talents can make a difference, Joy will rejoin the world of Silicon Valley startups.
In an interview conducted in Aspen where he lives part of the time with his family, Joy reiterated the risks he perceives in unconsidered, unregulated research in robotics, nanotechnology and biotechnology he alluded to in the Wired article some years ago. Joy believes the probability of a "civilization changing event" is high, perhaps as high as 50 percent. He envisions the possibility of pandemic disease, pointing to polio virus assembled in a lab, Craig Ventner, of Celera fame's, plans to create organisms from scratch, lab insecurities at facilities doing high risk research, and copies of plague genome on the web for anybody to see. Joy says "public awareness will most likely come only after an actual accident at a company or university. Until then, speed … will trump caution. Markets are extremely good at go, they're not very good at stop, "and I think we need a little bit of stop right now. Or else we're not going to like the outcome."
"He says he believes that businesses doing research in areas deemed risky by their peers should be forced to take out insurance against catastrophes. He also says that science guilds should have the authority to limit access to potentially dangerous ideas. 'Perhaps some knowledge won't be made public,' Joy says. "Perhaps there would be secrets. You know, you couldn't just get the code to the plague or the flu if you wanted it.'' In this model, any given firm could be refused genomic information by a guild, or bankrupted by insurance costs, or rejected by venture capitalists or investors frightened away by potential expenses and liabilities."
"He is encouraged, for instance, that weapons of mass destruction have become water-cooler talk and that his speeches and writings have sparked a certain amount of debate in the scientific community. (Joy has been especially provocative on the threat of tiny self-replicating ''nanobots'' reducing all earthly matter — us included — to dust. This is what's known among theoreticians as the ''gray goo'' problem.) On the other hand, there have been scientists in the public and private sectors who have characterized Joy as a neo-Luddite. Or who regard him as an outlier, a software writer unqualified to speak authoritatively about the complexities of biotechnology."
Also, see discussion on Slashdot for some reactions to the story."
June 15th, 2004 at 3:48 AM
It will not work…
What Joy fails to comprehend is that attempts to suppress the spread of knowledge are doomed to failure. The patenting system is explicitly setup to allow the spread of knowledge. The copyright system is structured along similar lines though somewhat slower about making knowledge free.
Just to prevent the success of any neo-luddites I downloaded the complete descriptions of 3 plague bacteria and one influenza virus tonight (I'm working on copies of the anthrax bacteria as well). That way if the "thought police" mistakenly adopt the Joy perspective there will still be sources for the information. Interestingly Joy seems to fail to recognize that this is not a "U.S." or "1st World" only topic. The most recent copy of a Yersinia pestis (plague) genome submitted to the Genbank public database came from "Academy of Military Medical Sciences, The Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology, China".
The information and methods for producing the information cannot be kept secret. The body of knowledge the scientific/engineering public at large has is simply too great to suppress its recreation. How can the regulation of commercial DNA sequencers be a successful deterrent to knowledge generation if the primary components that you need to manufacture them can be extracted from CD-ROM or DVD players/writers (lasers) and digital cameras (CCDs)?
The only way to resolve the problem is to understand what defenses are necessary and engineer them before the hazards present themselves.
June 15th, 2004 at 9:29 AM
The big secrets are kept.
Well, it's quite true that most information can't be kept a secret – but the US military private sector has done a pretty good job at keeping most of its latest technology completely classified. For instance, all these 'UFO' sightings that people from all over the world have seen, and even tape recorded, are simply new, and highly secret, aircraft created by the evil world power known as Big Brother.
One could easily dismiss this claim and ask – 'Why are they not using this new technology for warfare?' That answer is simple. Would you really want the enemy, or the entire world, to know about your ace in the hole? No – this technology will only reveal itself when the US government is threatened by a hostile takeover by another country, or by the enemy within.
Such things are considered to be nonsense – even among the scientific community (those who aren't actively participating, anyway) – but think about it for a moment. If we are capable of creating the 'technology of the gods' (i.e. Nanotechnology), then we 'were/are' also most capable of creating aircraft that flies with no audible sound and does not fly using today's current physics.
As for Bill Joy – I do not consider him to be a neo-luddite. He uses and embraces technology – he's just one of those who are not prepared for the massive flow of information and exponential technological progress we will be experiencing in less than 8 years from now. I'm sure if he had his way, he would prefer that 'technological progress' were put into stasis and simply keep things the way they are now…forever. Most people hate change, and the change that is coming is going to be the biggest change mankind has ever gone through. Bill Joy is just scared, and has every right to be – unpredictability and unknown variables are always something to be concerned about. It doesn't make him a bad guy though – therefore, the malice towards him should be redirected elsewhere.
June 16th, 2004 at 1:04 PM
Joy cries wolf, and who will be fooled?
I get the feeling that Bill Joy is riding on top of a movement of ignorant and fearful perspectives and popular beliefs — ones largely imprinted on the world's population through the realm of entertainment and fiction. He first joined the movement, or wave, a few years ago, and I believe that he liked the consequential 'ride into popular culture', if you will, and since has been trying to get back to the point he found himself at at that time. To me, and maybe only me, it looks like he's simply saying the same thing over and over, in a vain attempt to return to that popular position. I've seen no real progress from him towards logical or reasonable answers to his crusade against deregulation.
I haven't been interested enough in Joy's caterwauling to do any serious research into WHO he actually is, but I also don't think it matters. Until he joins the world's population of people who actually *think* (like Foresight) instead of just *react*, he's simply whining and doing nobody any good.
In any case… There are extremists like Kadamose, who most of the time seem to be writing to read their own words, and then there are responsible, thoughtful, individuals who come together and try to tackle the problems we face in the future, such as Foresight.
I happen to think Joy is more like Kadamose, if not quite as extreme. I myself am more like those of Foresight.
The question I ask myself now is: Does it matter which is in the majority?
And: How much more crying wolf can Joy do before people simply ignore him?
June 16th, 2004 at 11:01 PM
A follow-up to what I wrote earlier.
I was thinking about the subject of 'insurance' against catastrophic technology… (if such a thing is even possible)
It seems to me that this would hinder research, putting the more advanced, and potentially dangerous, technologies into the hands of, yet again, those who aren't ethically or morally aligned to the betterment of the rest of us. Similar to the idea that gun control means only the criminals have guns, and that actually raises the crime rate — take away the money being used for research from responsible organizations and we might be putting the most devastating 'gun' of all into the hands of people who may not be capable of even understanding what they're aiming at before they pull the trigger. Or worse, understanding, and, like Kadamose has so pointedly espoused, doing it anyway.
Am I over-reacting? Does doing what Joy described defeat an imporant need to do our best to ensure the proper evolution of these technologies within global society?
June 17th, 2004 at 12:38 AM
Re:A follow-up to what I wrote earlier.
Also: paying insurance is bound to be quite costly for bona-fide researchers. After all, how do you calculate the risks? Surely the insurance-companies will try and play it safe, asking 'premium' prices to cover their asses… Sooo… Logical conclusion? Do your high-risk stuff secretly, and save a lot of dough. If you find a marketable product, claim you found it accidentialy under *another* but harmlessly looking 'strawman-fits-all' project, that you set up and are paying a lot less insurance for… Secrecy, guild-forming… Is asking for troubles. I'd rather know what 'they' are up to, thank you very much.
June 17th, 2004 at 4:59 AM
Re:Joy cries wolf, and who will be fooled?
He isn't completely crying wolf. The police state is running around like a chicken with its head cut off. Witness the situation with Steve Kurtz who was arrested for growing bacteria at home (for the purpose of creating art works). Quick everyone — run out and dump clorox on your compost heap [lots of bacteria there] (but wait that might violate some obscure EPA regulation involving ground water pollution…).
The bottom line (IMO) is that we have over-reaction where it isn't going to do much good and under-reaction where it is really needed (e.g. solutions like good vaccines and antibiotics for known biohazards).
June 18th, 2004 at 11:37 AM
Its not just you.
I fully concur that he's just saying the same thing over and over again.
June 25th, 2004 at 12:07 PM
The Nature of Risk in Startups Preclude Joy's Idea
eom