Citizen Science and the Law

Editor,

I completely agree with your editorial, "Citizen Science and the Law" (The Citizen Scientist, 1 July 2005).

I realize that many of the regulations and laws are well-meaning, but I think they have gone entirely too far. As you pointed out, there should at the very least be reasonable exemptions for citizen scientists. It was difficult enough for the aspiring scientist twenty-five years ago; now it's just absurd. Normally-honest people with no intention of harming anyone have had to become secretive for fear their endeavors will be viewed in the same light as drug labs or that their amateur science labs will be held in violation of some confusing regulation that has far outgrown its original scope. We're talking about good people here, not criminals.

Contrary to what some might believe, drug cooks are in no way representative of amateur chemistry. Chemistry is an honorable pastime that often starts amateurs on the path to professional science. The same applies to physics, microbiology, etc., etc. Our society couldn't have existed without scientists, many of whom would be considered amateurs by modern standards. Their great contributions probably wouldn't have happened under today's excessively restrictive, litigious, and bureaucratic conditions. We need to give their modern counterparts the same opportunities.

Terrorists and meth cooks don't care about science. You and I could tell a drug lab from an amateur science lab, but can the regulators? Would they even try? A piece of paper tells them X, Y, and Z are illegal, and that's that. Should we suffer because of someone's inability (or unwillingness) to make distinctions? We don't have laws that treat all motorists as if they're intent on committing vehicular homicide; there shouldn't be analogous ones for amateur science.

Punishing the majority for the actions of a few is a sign of some pretty serious lapses in human character and intellect. I can't allow myself to think our lawmakers have truly gone this route. Maybe they just need more feedback from constituents like us.

There are so many regulations and laws now that it is technically illegal to do nearly anything but sit on one's couch and watch television. A tangle of restrictive and sometimes draconian laws is clearly not what our nation's founders wanted, nor is it what anyone else in their right mind would want.

Indeed, I'm all for hindering terrorists and drug dealers. As you said, though, terrorists will have won if things continue the way they're going. We need to think about rolling back some restrictions, not making additional ones.

Sincerely,

Christian Thorsten

P.S. I hadn't known about the "no liquids" and "no plants" restrictions on science fair projects nowadays. Those are so unreasonable that we shouldn't even have to dignify them with comment, yet there they are.

Readers, Christian Thorsten has addressed the root of a problem that is affecting an increasing number of legitimate citizen scientists: regulations, laws and officials that do not distinguish legitimate research from illegal activities. Please continue this vital dialogue by sending your opinions, experiences and suggestions to "Backscatter." Place "Backscatter" in the subject line. Meanwhile, be sure to see Christian's article on ferrous sulfate in this issue of The Citizen Scientist. Editor.

Another Radium Tale

Editor,

With regard to "A Radioactive Mystery" (The Citizen Scientst, 1 July 2005), several years ago, Scientific American had a nice piece on how people used to prescribe radium as a "magic elixir" for boosting health ("The great radium scandal," August 1993). One man died about eighty years ago, and to this day his body is still considered a radiation hazard!

Sincerely,

Mike Dziekan
VP Engineering
Connecticut Analytical Corporation

Thermal Pollution and Atmospheric Warming

Editor,

I was interested in Kevin Kilty's remarks in "Backscatter" (The Citizen Scientst, 1 July 2005) about direct thermal pollution as a cause of atmospheric warming as opposed to greenhouse effects. I came across an article by Professor Bo Nordell of the University of Lulea in northern Sweden putting the thesis that sheer heat output from certain energy sources could be a significant (but neglected) term in the global warming algebra. (Thermal Pollution Causes Climate Change, Global and Planetary Change 38 (3-4), May 2003). I don't quite buy it (0.02 W/m2 heat is probably negligible compared with ~2 W/m2 from GHG forcing). But he thinks it is important, and it could be if energy output increases substantially. It is never discussed in climate change circles, and that is why I was struck by Kevin's comments. The thesis has potential implications for energy politics, because, although nuclear energy is a low-carbon source, it produces "extra" heat, which the renewables (apart from geothermal) do not.

Best wishes,

Peter Harper
Head of Research
Centre for Alternative Technology
www.cat.org.uk

Letters to "Backscatter" are welcome. Letters are subject to light editing to correct punctuation, spelling and grammar. By placing "Backscatter" in the subject line, you give us permission to consider publishing your letter. Send your letter to Backscatter.