有组织犯罪最闻名于世的行为是栽赃替罪。我不是一般的TI（targeted  individual）奴隶，在你知情或者不知情的风花雪月政治事件中，我的名字满天飞，唯一的解释是因为有组织犯罪集团或者希望我做替罪，或者奴役我做他们演苦肉计的替身。欢迎来我博客讨论，http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_87d9b5b1010107e9.html 。

施害者（perp)解决方案

人人平等。多爱别人一点。少爱某些手下一些。他们还没有做超人的知识，修养与素质，更没有挣到做超人的权利。他们只是一般人。赋予他们太多的特权同样是错误。 特权与义务并在。特权没有任何义务来平衡。是个设计错误。  某些人有特权奴役我，更有义务无条件解救我。同时还有义务按时提前释放我，而不是以拖延为乐。

受害者要求立法禁止DEW的请求与中国脑计划进展

支持http://yangwanjiang.blogchina.com/479687.html  当然我们受害者在权力的顶层需要我们的人脉才容易为我们带来公平正义。选举人大政协委员时，他们是否为我们TI 谋福利应该成为最重要的衡量良心的标准。如果你在欧美居住，参议院众议院总统候选人是否关心TI的疾苦更应该是最重要的人品证明。We should give seminars  during the Occupy movement so more people will hear our story.  And these people are more likely to hear and understand what we are talking about.   We should do a little demo with a microwave pain device to prove to them how we are victimized so they can spread the words and urge their district reps to help us.    From their point of view, the more the politicians feel compassionate about us, the more big-hearted the politicians are.   That is exactly what we want.  We can not solve our problems.  An individual politician can not solve this problem alone.  Even the president can not just take care of this.  That is why  this problem is never solved.  If people/ voters can judge a leader by his reaction towards our issue, they will only vote for good leaders who love us.   Then both good politicians and indifferent politicians will take our side to get votes.  We will be saved. 没有高科技与军队警察财力物力护身的我们不敢推翻任何有组织犯罪背后的组织。我们只是希望救助TI奴隶。能够在权力面前协调利益关系，为我们TI奴隶谋取自由，人权的人才是有人品，值得信赖的人。  当然目前的近火还需要我们自己去处理。

以下连接里美国政府承认所谓的非致命定向能源武器，有些在法定无害范围，也会对人体造成伤害。 http://www.freedomfchs.com/bioeffectsofselectednonlethalweapons.pdf 。请看如下案例： http://blog.163.com/bon83579@126/blog/static/13534207820105182318880/?fromdm&isFromSearchEngine=yes。 DEW 是已知事实。 美国已经赔偿了冷战时期的脑控受害者。中国需要立法严禁任何对人体脑控行为与DEW的应用，并且提供电磁波屏蔽避难所。  缺乏这些相应措施是法制不健全与人性社会建设缺乏的标志。我们TI没有自己的电台可以创办自己的电台。其实办电台很便宜。我们还可以上街到各大高校散发传单，给各事业机构贴大字报。一个城市只要有100个TI积极参与就可以搞得很很轰动。

受害者自救方案

我建议全国范围举办慈善活动，演出，舞会，为受害者集资，建造避难用的屏蔽宿舍。为受害者办实事比空口喊口号有意义的多。 付出财力物力口伐坏人固然可以理解，可是安全健康第一。我们有限的人力财力也应该真的救人呀。安全健康来自科技。财力与知识是社会可以提供的。社会的理解与帮助才可以真正打破受害者生活在封闭世界的恶性循环。我们应该走出去，融入人群，呼吁社会的帮助。如果谁与各大QQ群有联络，我们可以全国全世界范围发起爱心慈善活动，救助有组织犯罪受害者。

请到sina.com 找我applepoodle， 王菲菲。 我会主持这个慈善募捐。

TI被动自卫往往是购买使用昂贵的屏蔽室。 不知道是否有人使用过这个主动自卫装置？http://www.quwave.com/defender.html  另外什么是static active shielding ？

以下是我的TI经历：无辜妇女要求社会帮助

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_87d9b5b10100ydit.html

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_87d9b5b10100x83f.html

My defense as the orginal red along with the evidence of hand held devices that can affect my emotions and have been threatening my health:

http://blackmagicmm.blog.jiaoyou8.com/friends_diary/blackmagicmm/0_0_0/view_00682456_yes_0_0.html

http://www.dana.org/news/features/detail.aspx?id=34534

How does one get involved in the field of neuroethics? For most everyone these days, it is "a long story," a roundabout route. But within the next generations that all may change, said panelists Thursday at a workshop during the International Neuroethics Society's annual meeting.

For example, panelist Emily Murphy started out as a basic-science researcher, but then did post-doc work in neuroethics at the Stanford Center for Medical Ethics. A few more twists and turns, and now she is a third-year law student, planning to clerk for a judge in the summer, while still pursuing neuroethics research. The link? A seed planted during her last undergrad year at Harvard—a class on the brain and the law.

"You enter the field almost always obliquely," Paul Root Wolpe of Emory told the audience. "You get into bioethics through a story." When Wolpe went to college, nobody studied neuroethics: "Most people had absolutely no idea what the word meant. When the first master's student in bioethics graduated from Emory [in 2008], he was immediately more accredited than anyone else in the department."  

So what are we who want to investigate the societal implications of neuroscience to do? The panelists had three main veins of advice.

First, get a credential, be it a Ph.D., a doctor's license, a law degree, or some other accreditation. That's what will get you a place on the committees, panels, and working groups, and get your foot in the door of politicos and social and medical agencies looking for someone to help them make sense of the science. "Credentials count," said Alan Leshner of AAAS. "You don't get to sit at the table unless you have a credential." It doesn't need to be a hard-science degree, though you should know the basics at least. "A lot of the questions we ask … don't require deep knowledge," Wolpe said. "What you're talking about is the implications of the neuroscience," not explaining its granular details.

Second, "the way to start doing it is to start doing it," Leshner advised. In courses or out, learn all you can about the ethical areas that interest you, and spread the word—especially in writing. Write essays and opinion pieces for local papers or websites that describe ethical issues that come up in the news, like brain enhancement and determining consciousness—or  whether Michael Jackson's doctor should have been convicted. And while the field is still young, it already has journals devoted to it. Wolpe edits the AJOB Neuroscience, said one of the journal's formats is to commission "target articles" and then a few responses to it. Writing one of those responses is a great way to get noticed.

In addition, attend events like the Society's meetings, and also look for related lectures or debates that are outside the field, such as the "science and technical studies" groups at some universities and a lecture from a visiting professor. You never know who you will run into: A researcher who needs a post-doc, a college administrator who needs a lecturer, or a legislator who could use an assistant who can give her advice. Part of getting this sort of job is serendipity, and "you increase your serendipity by going to places where the people you want to meet are," said Hank Greely, director of the program in neuroethics at the Stanford Center for Bioethics.

Third, don't expect it will be a full-time job. None of the four panelists does neuroethics full-time, and together they could come up with fewer than five people in the world who do. But the need is great: Nearly everyone wants to know how the mind works, and ethical questions arising from advances in science technology, especially, will only gain in prominence. "We're in a transition phase," Leshner said, "where you sort of have to be something else." 

Because it's so new, "this is something you can dedicate part of your career to, and still rise," said Wolpe. Become the go-to person on your medical team; offer to facilitate discussions with your faculty. You might quickly get a reputation that will stretch outside your department or office.

And in any case, being in a field outside science might be beneficial. Many of the questions neuroethicists ask ("Who should use Ritalin?" "Should we force predators to take a pill?") can't be answered by scientists alone. They are questions for the whole of society, including doctors, sociologists, educators, lawyers and judges, and all the rest of us. 

Neuroethical questions are "a multidisciplinary problem," Leshner said, "and it won't be answered by any of us who are entrenched in our own discipline."

Even though today's meeting took place in the same town the day before Neuroscience 2011, where tens of thousands of neuroscientists will meet and share research, the majority of audience members were not brain scientists. A good number studied or are studying law, medicine, ethics, and philosopy.

Sounds like a good sign for the field.

People all over the world have made their minds to hold any torturers in the world accountable no matter who you were and who you are.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57335679-503544/amnesty-international-calls-for-arrest-of-george-w-bush/

                                        FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR AMERICA
                                     "FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY"     http://www.freedomfightersforamerica.com 
                                                
ORWELL WARNED US AND NOW ITS HERE

GUTS AND GLORY
FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR AMERICA

你们迫不及待地在他的办公室里引诱这位医学专家如下：

“We really appreciate what he provided to us. And we think everything he reported is true. We work a lot than you think, even we are still working on it till now. Your neighbor is not the person who can commit this kind of crime. We didn’t find anything about it.”

这位医学专家问我:“你听懂了他所说的吗？”

http://goldring.wetpaint.com/page/Human+Mind+System  

http://goldring.wetpaint.com/page/Stories

smart meters surveillance of your
home, business and you !!!!
http://goldsilver.com/video/smart-meters/

P.S WHAT VIDEO DOES NOT MENTION IS : THE INFRA-RED
SURVEILLANCE AND THERMAL
IMAGING ALSO BEING USED. AND THE ABILITY TO SEND HARMFUL
SOUND SIGNALS TO ATTACK,AND CAUSE YOU CANCER, AND SLEEP DEPRAVATION.

Finally I have my cumputer.
I spent 65 euros. Ubuntu and windows were damaged. (infected virus boht)
Tomorrow is the day December 5, 2011.
My grandmother died on December 5, 2005.
Maybe tomorrow I'll be dead.
If I no longer respond to emails and there will be no activity on the internet on my part, I died of suicide.
If more than 6 months, I do not respond to emails, you understand, that I can not respond because they are no longer alive.
The QUWAVE works, but not for the microchip.
I feel my chakra pulsing and also relief.
I practiced: Reiki, CI QUNG, SHIATSU and ritual Shaman. I was very interested also AGOPUNTUNTURA. I knew that quwave is excellent for harmonizing the chakras, it is an intelligent tool. Unfortunately I have too many chips in my head and it is ineffective.
I can not make the video I promised, because PERPS continue to keep volumes high, medium and drive me crazy with V2K, I can not concentrate.

I prepared the cement shoes.

photo 1 of my suicidio september 2010

https://peacepink.ning.com/photo/01-settembre-2010-3?context=user

Tomorrow, December 5, 2011 I decide to go visit my grandmother in Vahlalla, nirvana.Elisium.
It may take several years, before the "silent holocaust" becomes public knowledge. And for the victims, the comparison is very real.

FOR Ms SOLEILMAVIS SUN : plaese don't cancelled my account peacepink.
If i am in Nirvana it's impossible LOGIN in my account, but not cancelled as this account of Maurizo Bassetti,italian case n.6 that is died in 2010 https://peacepink.ning.com/profile/MaurizioBassetti xiè-xiè.

Non lethal weapons, Mind control technologies and Organized stalking have come to the extent ,which no one can be evitable, although you are one of candidates of " president".
http://www.theprovince.com/news/Secret+police+accused+attack+candidate/5800871/story.html

Its official, everyone in my city is either a perp or if they are not immediately they become one soon enough. The gangstalking occuring in this world is on a massive scale. I dont know what experiences you have had with it but in my experience manKIND is becoming manCRUEL.

Whats your opinion? Are people really just being talked or conned into becoming perps? Or are they being mind-controlled just as we are? This network is too big for so many people to be so inhumane.

Im starting to believe the whole world is prey to mind-control. What do you think?

Petition to the house of commons of Canada" Re. Non lethal weapons, Mind control weapons, Organized stalking was tabled by the House. Please pay close attention to it. Thanks.

Passing around, reposting or retweeting is really appreciated.

From: john_w_allman@hotmail.com
To: mcactivism@yahoogroups.com; mcforums@yahoogroups.com; multistalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Darrim Daoud court hearing today in London
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 19:58:02 +0000

http://news.ifeng.com/taiwan/1/detail_2011_11/30/11001790_0.shtml

林瑞雄（中）昨在台北出席一项研讨会，致词结束后在随扈保护下接受媒体访问。

　林瑞雄表示，有人要对付他，这些人明知他是脑瘤与神经生理的专家，还这样对付他。 来源：台湾《联合报》

中新网11月30日电 据台湾《中国时报》报道，2012年台湾地区领导人选举亲民党参选人宋楚瑜竞选搭档林瑞雄29日出席一场医疗研讨会，之后接受媒体访问，他先是抱怨成为候选人后自由受限，认为维安人员两个就够，一下子20几个“太浪费”；接着他又暗示有人用电磁波对付他，让现场媒体一头雾水。

林瑞雄说，自己是研究电磁波与脑瘤的专家，“他们竟然还敢用这种方式对付我？”

林瑞雄昨天出席“医疗事故预防及不责难补偿制度国际研讨会”，面对时事问题他侃侃而谈、有问必答，然后他突然主动询问媒体：“台湾除‘国安局’之外，到底有没有‘国安局’的‘国安局’？…东厂里还有没有锦衣卫呢？”

由于林的发言显得突兀，有点无厘头，让现场媒体一阵错愕，无人能应答。林见状又继续说，自己是研究脑瘤与电磁波的专家，他还呼吁威胁他生命安全的人“要小心”，“你们(媒体)可能不懂，大概只有‘国安局’或要威胁我生命安全的人才懂。”

当媒体追问林是否暗指“有人要用电磁波让你得脑瘤？”，林不愿多谈，仅说“不是，我只能说到这边。”随后，就在维安人员保护下快步离开现场，留下满腹疑问的媒体记者

Hi,

Just something you should read...

Take care.

FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR AMERICA
                                     "FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY"     http://www.freedomfightersforamerica.com 
JESSE BELTRAN  
REDSHEEP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbfwpLuo2z4
JESSE BELTRAN                                     
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBoygdGRE8

WE WILL BE INTERVIEWING
MR BELTRAN THIS FRI DEC 2ND
8PM EST.
FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR AMERICA WORLD
GUEST: MR. JESSE BELTRAN
PARAMEDIC, FIRE FIGHTER. WITNESS TO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY AND COVERT MEDICAL
IMPLANTATION VICTIM. TELLS HIS STORY
TO CHRIS, PRES. FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR AMERICA
FREEDOM FIGHTERS FOR AMERICA WORLD RADIO:
ON COMPUTER:
Click here: TalkShoe - Call - Freedom FIghters For America World Radio

call in info:
724-444-7444
access code 27564#
pin 1# ( if asked for one )

https://www.2011natd.ca/ index.php?action=natd2011.exbCompanies

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/hugh-gusterson/the-militarization-neuroscience

We've seen this story before: The Pentagon takes an interest in a rapidly changing area of scientific knowledge, and the world is forever changed. And not for the better.

During World War II, the scientific field was atomic physics. Afraid that the Nazis were working on an atomic bomb, the U.S. government mounted its own crash project to get there first. The Manhattan Project was so secret that Congress did not know what it was funding and Vice President Harry S. Truman did not learn about it until FDR's death made him president. In this situation of extreme secrecy, there was almost no ethical or political debate about the Bomb before it was dropped on two cities by a bureaucratic apparatus on autopilot.

Despite J. Robert Oppenheimer's objections, a few Manhattan Project scientists organized a discussion on the implications of the "Gadget" for civilization shortly before the bomb was tested. Another handful issued the Franck Report, advising against dropping the bomb on cities without a prior demonstration and warning of the dangers of an atomic arms race. Neither initiative had any discernible effect. We ended up in a world where the United States had two incinerated cities on its conscience, and its pursuit of nuclear dominance created a world of nuclear overkill and mutually assured destruction.

This time we have a chance to do better. The science in question now is not physics, but neuroscience, and the question is whether we can control its militarization.

According to Jonathan Moreno's fascinating and frightening new book, Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense (Dana Press 2006), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been funding research in the following areas:

• Mind-machine interfaces ("neural prosthetics") that will enable pilots and soldiers to control high-tech weapons by thought alone.
• "Living robots" whose movements could be controlled via brain implants. This technology has already been tested successfully on "roborats" and could lead to animals remotely directed for mine clearance, or even to remotely controlled soldiers.
• "Cognitive feedback helmets" that allow remote monitoring of soldiers' mental state.
• MRI technologies ("brain fingerprinting") for use in interrogation or airport screening for terrorists. Quite apart from questions about their error rate, such technologies would raise the issue of whether involuntary brain scans violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
• Pulse weapons or other neurodisruptors that play havoc with enemy soldiers' thought processes.
• "Neuroweapons" that use biological agents to excite the release of neurotoxins. (The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention bans the stockpiling of such weapons for offensive purposes, but not "defensive" research into their mechanisms of action.)
• New drugs that would enable soldiers to go without sleep for days, to excise traumatic memories, to suppress fear, or to repress psychological inhibitions against killing.

Moreno's book is important since there has been little discussion about the ethical implications of such research, and the science is at an early enough stage that it might yet be redirected in response to public discussion.

If left on autopilot, however, it's not hard to see where all of this will lead. During the Cold War, misplaced fears of a missile gap and a mind control gap excited an overbuilding of nuclear weapons and unethical LSD experiments on involuntary human subjects. Similarly, we can anticipate future fears of a "neuroweapons" gap, and these fears will justify a headlong rush into research (quite likely to involve unethical human experiments) that will only stimulate our enemies to follow suit.

The military and scientific leaders chartering neuroweapons research will argue that the United States is a uniquely noble country that can be trusted with such technologies, while other countries (except for a few allies) cannot. They will also argue that these technologies will save lives and that U.S. ingenuity will enable the United States to dominate other countries in a neuroweapons race. When it is too late to turn back the clock, they will profess amazement that other countries caught up so quickly and that an initiative intended to ensure American dominance instead led to a world where everyone is threatened by chemicalized soldiers and roboterrorists straight out of Blade Runner.

Meanwhile, individual scientists will tell themselves that, if they don't do the research, someone else will. Research funding will be sufficiently dominated by military grant makers that it will cause some scientists to choose between accepting military funding or giving up their chosen field of research. And the very real dual-use potential of these new technologies (the same brain implant can create a robosoldier or rehabilitate a Parkinson's disease sufferer) will allow scientists to tell themselves that they are "really" working on health technologies to improve the human lot, and the funding just happens to come from the Pentagon.

Does it have to be this way? In spite of obvious problems controlling a field of research that is much less capital-intensive and susceptible to international verification regimes than nuclear weapons research, it is possible that a sustained international conversation between neuroscientists, ethicists, and security specialists could avert the dystopian future sketched out above.

Unfortunately, however, Moreno (p.163) quotes Michael Moodie, a former director of the Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, as saying, "The attitudes of those working in the life sciences contrast sharply with the nuclear community. Physicists since the beginning of the nuclear age, including Albert Einstein, understood the dangers of atomic power, and the need to participate actively in managing these risks. The life sciences sectors lag in this regard. Many neglect thinking about the potential risks of their work."

Time to start talking!

Frank and serious talk about the military’s use of mind control is rare outside the social circles of conspiracy theorists.

But at a recent trans-Atlantic discussion at the Dana centers in Washington, D.C., and London, professors of ethics, neuroscience and peace studies linked current research to forecast advancements in neurological warfare, including fear- and sleep-reducing drugs and hormones for facilitating interrogations.

http://www.dana.org/events/detail.aspx?id=9244

http://www.economist.com/node/1143583

People already worry about genetics. They should worry about brain science too

May 23rd 2002 | from the print edition

 

IN AN attempt to treat depression, neuroscientists once carried out a simple experiment. Using electrodes, they stimulated the brains of women in ways that caused pleasurable feelings. The subjects came to no harm—indeed their symptoms appeared to evaporate, at least temporarily—but they quickly fell in love with their experimenters.

Such a procedure (and there have been worse in the history of neuroscience) poses far more of a threat to human dignity and autonomy than does cloning. Cloning is the subject of fierce debate, with proposals for wholesale bans. Yet when it comes to neuroscience, no government or treaty stops anything. For decades, admittedly, no neuroscientist has been known to repeat the love experiment. A scientist who used a similar technique to create remote-controlled rats seemed not even to have entertained the possibility. “Humans? Who said anything about humans?” he said, in genuine shock, when questioned. “We work on rats.”

Ignoring a possibility does not, however, make it go away. If asked to guess which group of scientists is most likely to be responsible, one day, for overturning the essential nature of humanity, most people might suggest geneticists. In fact neurotechnology poses a greater threat—and also a more immediate one. Moreover, it is a challenge that is largely ignored by regulators and the public, who seem unduly obsessed by gruesome fantasies of genetic dystopias.

In this section

• »The future of mind control
• What is the point?
• Will there be war?
• Saving Colombia from itself
• Thunderstruck

Reprints

Related items

• The ethics of brain science: Open your mindMay 23rd 2002

---

Related topics

• Biology
• Genetics
• Europe
• Western Europe
• United Kingdom

A person's genetic make-up certainly has something important to do with his subsequent behaviour. But genes exert their effects through the brain. If you want to predict and control a person's behaviour, the brain is the place to start. Over the course of the next decade, scientists may be able to predict, by examining a scan of a person's brain, not only whether he will tend to mental sickness or health, but also whether he will tend to depression or violence. Neural implants may within a few years be able to increase intelligence or to speed up reflexes. Drug companies are hunting for molecules to assuage brain-related ills, from paralysis to shyness (see article).

A public debate over the ethical limits to such neuroscience is long overdue. It may be hard to shift public attention away from genetics, which has so clearly shown its sinister side in the past. The spectre of eugenics, which reached its culmination in Nazi Germany, haunts both politicians and public. The fear that the ability to monitor and select for desirable characteristics will lead to the subjugation of the undesirable—or the merely unfashionable—is well-founded.

Not so long ago neuroscientists, too, were guilty of victimising the mentally ill and the imprisoned in the name of science. Their sins are now largely forgotten, thanks in part to the intractable controversy over the moral status of embryos. Anti-abortion lobbyists, who find stem-cell research and cloning repugnant, keep the ethics of genetic technology high on the political agenda. But for all its importance, the quarrel over abortion and embryos distorts public discussion of bioethics; it is a wonder that people in the field can discuss anything else.

In fact, they hardly do. America's National Institutes of Health has a hefty budget for studying the ethical, legal and social implications of genetics, but it earmarks nothing for the specific study of the ethics of neuroscience. The National Institute of Mental Health, one of its component bodies, has seen fit to finance a workshop on the ethical implications of “cyber-medicine”, yet it has not done the same to examine the social impact of drugs for “hyperactivity”, which 7% of American six- to eleven-year-olds now take. The Wellcome Trust, Britain's main source of finance for the study of biomedical ethics, has a programme devoted to the ethics of brain research, but the number of projects is dwarfed by its parallel programme devoted to genetics.

Uncontrollable fears

 

The worriers have not spent these resources idly. Rather, they have produced the first widespread legislative and diplomatic efforts directed at containing scientific advance. The Council of Europe and the United Nations have declared human reproductive cloning a violation of human rights. The Senate is soon to vote on a bill that would send American scientists to prison for making cloned embryonic stem cells.

Yet neuroscientists have been left largely to their own devices, restrained only by standard codes of medical ethics and experimentation. This relative lack of regulation and oversight has produced a curious result. When it comes to the brain, society now regards the distinction between treatment and enhancement as essentially meaningless. Taking a drug such as Prozac when you are not clinically depressed used to be called cosmetic, or non-essential, and was therefore considered an improper use of medical technology. Now it is regarded as just about as cosmetic, and as non-essential, as birth control or orthodontics. American legislators are weighing the so-called parity issue—the argument that mental treatments deserve the same coverage in health-insurance plans as any other sort of drug. Where drugs to change personality traits were once seen as medicinal fripperies, or enhancements, they are now seen as entitlements.

This flexible attitude towards neurotechnology—use it if it might work, demand it if it does—is likely to extend to all sorts of other technologies that affect health and behaviour, both genetic and otherwise. Rather than resisting their advent, people are likely to begin clamouring for those that make themselves and their children healthier and happier.

This might be bad or it might be good. It is a question that public discussion ought to try to settle, perhaps with the help of a regulatory body such as the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which oversees embryo research in Britain. History teaches that worrying overmuch about technological change rarely stops it. Those who seek to halt genetics in its tracks may soon learn that lesson anew, as rogue scientists perform experiments in defiance of well-intended bans. But, if society is concerned about the pace and ethics of scientific advance, it should at least form a clearer picture of what is worth worrying about, and why.