Forget smallpox. What really keeps the anti-terrorism bureaucrats up nights is foot-and-mouth virus. Last spring, the Bush administration tried to block the release of a report titled “Countering Agricultural Bioterrorism” by the National Academies. The government wanted to keep this legitimate scientific study from the public so as not to give al Qaeda any ideas about sneaking foot-and-mouth disease—or other agricultural pests—into the country to decimate our beef industry. Luckily, the government lost, so you and Osama can now order it online at www.nap.edu.

More important than this small victory is the determination of the scientific establishment not to take such government encroachment lightly. In a strong response to this and other overzealous regulations, the National Academies rebuked the Bush administration Friday for slapping restrictions on how “sensitive but not classified” scientific research can be published. The criteria were too vague and gave the government too much power to declare what research was “sensitive,” the Academies complained.

These events show that being a scientist is no longer just a matter of doing research. Increasingly, scientists are being called upon to defend their work from creeping government regulation. And a new group being formed at the Institute of Politics (IOP) may help Harvard students of science prepare for this new, more political research scene.

Last Thursday night, the IOP hosted more than a dozen representatives from an array of science and health-focused student groups. The big news of the night was when the meeting’s chair Aaron Y. Huang ’04, who is a member of the IOP’s Science and Technology Policy Group, announced that he is planning to launch a Harvard chapter of Student Pugwash USA, a national student group that discusses ethical issues stemming from scientific advances. (It is modeled on The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, which won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995.) Huang encouraged those present to get involved.

When formed, the organization will be the only student group for all Harvard science concentrators to discuss the ethical implications of research. At a place with student groups inhabiting just about every possible niche, the lack of a group that brings scientists together to debate ethics might seem surprising. However, there is a good reason for the lack of interest. Often, demanding to discuss the ethics of science is code for trying to restrict its practice. Many scientists, wary of restrictions and firm in their belief that the ends of science (that is, understanding the world) lie outside of moral considerations, just refuse to enter the debate. But an unholy alliance of national security mavens and self-appointed academic ethicists are now threatening to hijack decision-making over the bounds of scientific research. As a result, scientists will more and more be pressed into service to defend their work from creeping government regulation. Harvard students of science need to be well-equipped to repulse encroachment when it comes.

Universities will be among the first to suffer under such rules if they are not challenged. Understandably, then, among the signatories of Friday’s statement by the Academies was Harvey V. Fineberg ’67, who is the president of the Institute of Medicine and the former provost of Harvard.

Although many who have worked in academia such as Fineberg support open publication of research, some academics remain skittish. Moreover, the most serious threat to open scientific research comes not from the politicos in the White House but from the academics whose intellectual strafing allows restrictions to advance. In his new book Our Posthuman Future, political scientist Francis Fukuyama—who is also a member of the influential President’s Council on Bioethics—makes the case for regulating the manipulation of human genes and the widespread prescription of psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin and Prozac. His principle arguments against practices such as human reproductive cloning don’t rely on pointing out the serious risk of disease in the clone. Rather, he opposes genetic engineering on the grounds that it might change “human nature” so drastically that it could “have possibly malign consequences for liberal democracy and the nature of politics itself.” He derives his views from Aristotle and the related concept of “natural rights.”

It’s easy enough to dismiss Fukuyama as an out-of-touch academic. But as a member of the President’s Council of Bioethics, he has already made good on the chance to impose his curious worldview on scientists. This summer, he voted for a ban on research cloning and thereby blocked those who are trying to cure disease using this powerful tool. The scientific advances that could help save lives have already been subjugated to the narrow ideology of a political philosopher.

Scientists, who are often wary of dirtying their hands in political mud fights, must face up to the threat academics like Fukuyama pose to free inquiry and medical advances. And that’s where Student Pugwash comes in. The annual national Student Pugwash USA conference begins today in Washington and one of the topics on the agenda is scientific research and national security. It should be an eye-opening experience. According to Huang, two participants from Harvard are going to the conference. Next year, I hope more students—and more science concentrators—can go. Because of their intimate knowledge of their work, the best people to regulate science and prevent political obstructionism are scientists themselves. Spending time at the IOP may not seem as important as being in the laboratory. But the IOP and the laboratories on Divinity Avenue are getting closer every day.

Jonathan H. Esensten ’04 is a biochemical sciences concentrator in Lowell House. His column appears on alternate Thursdays.