Do we need more stringent background checks for PhD students?

The British security services have intercepted up to 100 suspected terrorists posing as graduate students, the Observer newspaper reported on Sunday.

The foreign students -- many from what Britain calls "countries of concern" such as Iran and Pakistan -- are accused of trying to obtain the raw materials and know-how to develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

Britain currently vets non-European Union students who want to study "proliferation-risk" science subjects under the Academic Technology Approval Scheme, which was introduced last November and has denied clearance to many potential graduate students. Still, clearly leaks remain.

It makes me wonder where to best draw the line in countries such as Britain and the US so as to foster the flow of ideas and people in academic institutions, yet maintain the appropriate level of stringent national security. Further, these measures do nothing to stop home-grown scientific terrorists such as the one that likely initiated the 2001 anthrax scare in the US. So, should all would-be graduate students undergo greater scrutiny by the government? Or should the onus be on professors and supervisors to weed out shady students?

Elie Dolgin, Associate Editor, The Scientist

Governments have a long history of feeling threatened by the "intellectual elite", to the extent that some governments (remember Cambodia) have even slaughtered people for merely wearing eyeglasses. The Argentine goverment under the Perez regime arrested a famous neurochemist because he was scheduled to present a talk on "free radicals". I believe we need to answer two questions: 1) Were the 100 "suspected terrorists" legitimate graduate students or not? 2) Had they been accepted to legitimate graduate schools? Clearly it is possible for intelligent and well-educated people to do "something crazy", but that is the exception, not the rule.

Pretty naive. I know personally, of one case where an Afghan Taliban impersonated a graduate student for this purpose at a major university. After being kicked out of the country, he was trying to get back, and probably succeeded. He was a very good liar, probably because he had his religious convictions that made him feel like it was ok to lie.

Several groups have declared their intentions to acquire chemical and biological weapons, have issued fatwas blessing chemical and biological weapons. Of course they are here, and of course they are serious. We in academia have this ideal that presumes everyone is a good person. It's absolute rubbish.

I will also note that the Ivins case is probable rubbish. There are huge holes in that case. For instance, the handwriting style is something I have seen from foreign adults more than once, who are new to English. There is more evidence consistent with someone from outside the labs than from someone inside.

There are export control laws that regulate the export of certain commodities to certain nations. There are also laws make it illegal to provide certain information to foreign nationals that are citizens of certain nations. These laws are intended to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons. Tools of torture, night vision devices, various electronics, and equipment for the production of missiles, UAV and other items of concern are also regulated. Even manuals and software are controlled for certain equipment.

Many of us would like to believe that the free flow of information would create a more enlightened and civilized world. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and every major nation has agreed to certain controls on exports. Those nations that have not agreed or that have supported terrorist activities are on the list of prohibited nations. These laws are very real and people are serving prison terms for some violations. It is worthwhile to know that sharing certain information with students from prohibited nations can deemed to be an export, and treated as a crime. Enrolling students from some nations in classes on biological warfare is probably illegal or ill advised. Good sense should be applied if you are uncertain, and there are laws and free advise available.

I have attached some useful links if you would like to know more:

US Department of Commerce – Bureau of Industry and Security
http://www.bis.doc.gov/

Export Administration Regulations Database
http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/ear_data.html

“Don’t Let this Happen to YOU!” examples of cases.
http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/dontletthishappentoyou-2008.pdf

Wassenaar Arrangement – and international agreement related to arms, dual use goods, and munitions
http://www.wassenaar.org/controllists/index.html

It is becoming more important for each of us to understand how wrong things can go if we do not respect the risks of the modern world. Each of us needs to consider the consequences of sharing information or technology that can put us all at risk. We need to be aware that there those that do not like science, the modern world, or cultural freedoms. And that there are those who would be happy to restrict our freedoms to protect us from those that might do us physical harm. Let’s exercise good judgment and avoid creating the justification for invasive government.

Bioweapons are special problems because, as is said, "Natural disease is the greatest terrorist." So it's really almost anything in pathology of infectious disease, with a concentration on viruses and molecular biology.

So far, since the air drop of plague infected fleas on China by Japan in WWII (which didn't work very well) the only intentional attempted use of bioweapons has been Asahara's cult in Japan, and the two people at the top of the Rajneesh group who used Salmonella. These were small religious groups. To date, there is not an example of someone from a major religion doing this. But, the Al Qaeda branch of Wahabbis has said the want them. So?

Something else that needs to be said is that the reality of much of the regulation put in place in the last 7 years is that it isn't helping much, and is definitely hindering. One of the few exceptions is vetting of people - but most of that needs to be self-generated by us, not imposed. All of us know pretty well what is dangerous and what isn't. Many of us have reason to be suspicious of question people from time to time. We just need to make it part of our culture. Otherwise, we will interfere with response to disease events and that is the worst thing possible.

I will also add that the enforcement relative to Dr. Butler was an outrageous travesty. The report does not mention that none of the counts he was convicted on had anything to do with the plague samples. Nor does it mention that the current official practice is now exactly what Dr. Butler did. It does not mention that Dr. Butler was the pre-eminent plague researcher, or that his work on cholera rehydration saved more lives than any other known physician. The report does not mention that Dr. Butler fully cooperated, but was hung out to dry by his university. The behavior of the FBI on this case was pretty reprehensible. It was a "soft target" prosecution that was the result of political witch-hunt need to nail hides to a wall.