The Genomic "Bomb"

I mean to offer this post, in part, as a statement of frustration with humanity, in the name of peace, liberty, inclusive community, free individual development, and love, sentiments that seem to be utterly at war with various governments, including my own, and non-state/quasi-state entities (I am thinking in particular of the Islamic State).  I watched a particular TED talk on contemporary research with genomes involving a technology called CRISPR (Clustered Regular Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) (see Jennifer Kahn, " Gene editing can now change an entire species - forever ").  CRISPR apparently uses bacterial species to unravel particular segments of DNA in sexually reproducing species to amend such segments, introducing mutations to alter relevant genetically hard wired material in individuals.  The speaker, Jennifer Kahn, further explained how technology now exists to make such mutations repetitive over successive generations.  She, finally, offered a relevant example, concerning management of invasive species (her example, the Asian carp in the Great Lakes), suggesting that it might be possible to engineer a genetic mutation that would cause a sexually reproducing species to only produce male offspring by rendering the XX combination in male gametes to malfunction or otherwise be incapable of fertilizing a female egg, ultimately leading to the population's extinction.  Given ready transmission of individuals over vastly expansive geographic spaces, it is possible, given the pattern of dominance exhibited by CRISPR mutations across generations, that such would lead to the total global extinction of the species. 
        A thought: what if some really intelligent people at a Silicon Valley start up, without any government involvement, were to engineer the very genetic mutation that Ms. Kahn offered in the case of the Asian carp on the human genome, "weaponized" it for rapid and consistent transmission within the gene pool, AND INTENTIONALLY RELEASED IT, to as broad an international spectrum as possible, transcending all manner of class, ethnic, and geospatial lines (say, through fertility clinics, where reproductive materials can be readily assembled and manipulated to generate the appropriate mutation)?  It would take a highly concerted (and entirely clandestine) effort to research the appropriate steps to identify a genomic pathway, to produce the mutation, to disseminate it, and to prevent any disclosure of the mutation to any government or media entity.  The mutation might go undetected for decades, maybe even a century, until, in certain regions, the all too evident sexual disproportionality within the population would reveal, maybe too late, the potential for whole regional populations to crash within generations.  In the process, in particular societies where the mutation begins to reduce numbers of females of reproductive age, males carrying the mutation would be apt to migrate to places with larger numbers of reproductive age females, promoting the explosive diffusion of the mutation across international borders, reducing the proportion of reproductive age females everywhere.  Within maybe 150 years, the global female population might reach a breaking point where entire societies might be on the verge of disappearing and global population falls well below a steady replacement rate.  Assuming enough sophistication went into the mutation's development, moreover, perhaps involving multiple manipulations of different sections of the human genome, it might be really difficult for genetic scientists in the future to pin the mutation down in order to reverse it.  Given the apparent robustness of CRISPR mutations and their capacity to dominate a gene pool, maybe such a mutation could successfully euthanize the entire human species within, say, 350 to 450 years.
        I offer this possibility with a question.  Assuming that what I have just described might be theoretically possible, should individuals capable of producing such a mutation do it?  On its face, the obvious answer would, of course, be no.  After an entire week of media coverage of events like the IS inspired mass murder by truck in Nice, the seeming drift toward something approaching fascism in post-coup Turkey, and the amazing robustness of fascism across many countries right now, I am intrigued with the thought of placing a time bomb within the human genome, if only for fear that the world we are living in may be descending into barbarism.  That is to say, if, one hundred years from now, humanity was mired in a new dark age of religious extremism, xenophobic nationalism, and nuclear-backed imperialism, the thought that science today might have demonstrated the foresight to place our species on a hard deadline might at least be the Enlightenment's last laugh before the horror show and the planet's last hope to be spared any additional pilferage by its most successful invasive species!

On the FBI's Determination that Clinton Should Not Be Indicted

Briefly, FBI Director James Comey's statement that the bureau will not recommend to Justice Department officials that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be indicted for mishandling of classified material in association with the use of a private email server for official State Department business leaves me a little confused.  Strictly with regard to the law, my understanding is that Clinton's actions fall within the terms of the US Code, Title 18, Chapter 1924, on the "Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents and materials." In this regard, the failure of the FBI to recommend prosecution in this case hinges on a particular interpretation of this provision, inferring that violations of the law require strict intent on the behalf of the transgressor.  As such, Secretary Clinton will not be prosecuted under the law because she was oblivious either to the fact that she was handling classified materials in her email traffic or that handling such materials on an unauthorized server constituted a violation of the law.  In other words, mere careless handling of classified materials does not constitute a criminal violation.  The particular legal provision in question does, in fact, contain language supporting such an interpretation on the part of law enforcement officials and prosecutors, explicitly stating that classified materials must be "knowingly" removed "with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location." If this is the accepted interpretation of USC Title 18, Chapter 1924, then I can understand the sense of disgust that seemed to accompany Director Comey's announcement, implying that there apparently was much more that the Bureau wished that it could do to deter this sort of behavior in the handling of classified materials, but the law simply afforded no meaningful remedies.  To the extent that this is true, it suggests that, especially in our current environment of informational warfare, hacking, and aggressive activity by violent non-state organizations aided significantly by online information gathering, Congress really needs to reexamine statutory standards on electronic storage and transmission of classified materials and add unambiguous criminal penalties for negligent handling of classified material, especially within electronic information transmission networks.  

            Apparently, the Office of the Inspector General for the State Department had explicit, written procedures in place to prevent employees of the department from doing precisely what Secretary Clinton had done, and, upon her appointment as department head, Secretary Clinton had cavalierly taken it upon herself to establish a nonconventional communications protocol without even asking the Inspector General's office whether use of private, non-governmental server was compliant with departmental procedures, much less with the United States Code(!).  As a result, the department head and her staff set an example that sloppy, unprofessional skirting of security procedures in the handling of classified materials generated and circulating within the department was entirely understandable and permissible - precisely the sort of example that you would want to see from a head of state and chief diplomat of the United States.  To the extent that conscientious compliance with the sound and reasonably enacted security procedures of a department responsible for maintenance of globally expansive communications networks incorporating thousands of diplomatic and foreign analytic personnel should be expected from the head of the department, at least as an example for subordinates, Director Comey quite reasonably voiced his frustration with the careless mishandling of classified materials by Secretary Clinton and her staff, and the American public deserved such a frank appraisal of Clinton's actions in order to better develop an informed judgment on Clinton's suitability for the office of President.  

             Having said this, we need to simultaneously keep in mind what is at stake in November for the American general electorate.  Following the present course, the choice between prospective Democratic and Republican candidates, respectively, pits an arrogant, overly ambitious, out of touch, technocratic-minded career politician, who is apparently too concerned with appearances of professionalism to follow through on important details like information security, against an equivalently arrogant, self-centered billionaire real estate magnet and quasi-populist, who likes to play footsy with racist, xenophobic fascists and contemplates ripping up negotiated treaties and international agreements in order to remake the world in his own desired image.  It should go without saying that, in a contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Clinton should be the only reasonable choice.  As low an opinion as I have of Secretary Clinton, I do not want to even contemplate the alternative!  

               As for the conclusion that I am bound to hear, especially from the avowed Clinton-haters I work with, that someone had to have gotten to Comey and, further, to the Attorney General Lynch to convince them not to move forward on a prosecution of Secretary Clinton, the legal interpretation of Title 18, Chapter 1924 speaks for itself.  Knowledge regarding the potential for violation of safe handling and intentionality to violate safe handling procedures is unambiguous as a threshold for criminal prosecution under current law.  The prosecution of Hillary Clinton for criminal mishandling of classified material would have required a contortion of existing patterns of enforcement of federal law.  On the other hand, many, many individuals will conclude, notwithstanding, that something stinks in the U.S. Justice Department.  That is alright.  Such individuals were never going to vote for Hillary Clinton in the November general presidential election anyway and were simply looking for some justification to vote for Donald Trump, even if he is utterly unqualified to serve as President of the United States.  Any conspiracy theory concerning Secretary Clinton's use of her private email server expressly contradicts existing patterns of criminal law concerning the handling of classified materials by U.S. government employees.  Insofar as this is the case, I still hope, sincerely, that Hillary Clinton will have learned from this episode, seeing through her own self-important, know-it-all arrogance to realize that she is embarking on a destiny that transcends, in its importance, the limited imagery that she envisions with the title of President and, as such, that she understand that the relevance of her achievement in November far transcends her own ambitions!