Time to Find a New Line of Work

It seems that my line of work has become more dangerous recently, and I wasn't even aware of it. Over the past few years, several microbiologists (or people who are closer enough to microbiologists to fit into a conspiracy nut's theory...more on that later) have died. Some were natural deaths, while others were from outside causes (car accidents, plane crashes, murder, suicide, industrial accidents). While people die all the time, these people have jobs that could possibly link them to secret government projects. If these now deceased scientists might have been working on something secret and dangerous, then none of this can be a coincidence. The question then becomes, as one article put it, "Who's killing the world's microbiologists?" (Not to be confused with the 1978 film, Who Is Killing the Great Chefs of Europe?) More articles here and here.

I have to point out a few issues I have with several of the articles (and I'm using that term as loosely as possible here) I have found on the subject. Despite what one might think from reading these articles microbiologists, geneticists, molecular biologists and protein chemists are not all the same thing. While they don't tend to feud on an East Coast-West Coast level, they might chafe at being lumped in with the other groups. Some of the techniques may overlap, but they are all fairly distinct groups.

All of the articles seem to take any involvement with DNA sequencing or molecular biology as evidence that a researcher is involved in covert bioweapon research. If this is true and would make one a target, I am very glad that I have now moved into pharmaceutical manufacturing. I can only imagine how much danger I would have been in if the terrorists, government agency, or aliens (Take your pick. No one can decide who is responsible) had developed an interest in genetic analysis of hydrogenases before I finished school.

Before you begin asking "isn't it possible that these things could all be just coincidence?", one of the authors has done the work for us. According to his calculations the odds of this happening are 14,000,000,000 to 1. That's awfully nice of him to help us out like that, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that he might want the help of an actuary or statistician to try and figure this one out.

Several of the things in the articles end up being remarkably perplexing. For example, when it is brought up that in the case of a specific scientist, there was no evidence in his research to make him a potential target, the theorist's answer is that it's not proof that he wasn't doing anything that would make him a target. This is true, but the same logic can be applied to show that he could have potentially been researching the best way to market Barbie dolls to males age 13-18; after all, there's no proof he wasn't. This is how these theories typically work. Facts that may or may not belong together are joined with a theory that could possibly explain everything, even though many simpler explanations are available. Once the theory is formed, the burden of proof is no longer on the theorist to prove the theory but on the more rational or more naive depending on one's point of view. You see, absence of evidence is only further evidence of a cover up.

To sum up, let's follow the logic of one of these theories, and see if you can understand how the various leaps of faith are made. Several scientists have died in circumstances ranging from the suspicious (murder) to the ultra-suspicious (things like heart attacks and complications from lung transplant surgery). These scientists worked in similar fields, and some of them had experience in molecular biology. Still with me? Good, because this is where it starts getting a little sketchy. The theory now explains that all of these people were in fact working on weapons that could specifically target ethnic groups while leaving others unimpacted. (Proof? Remember, you have to prove that they weren't doing it. All evidence has been covered up.) Then, the people who were working on the weapons program were targeted and killed by a terrorist group that is making a weapon that will destroy most of the population of the planet. They had to eliminate these people because the scientists were the ones who could have developed a cure. Note that for absolutely no reason whatsoever, we have made a complete 180 and gone from theorizing that the scientists were developing ethnically targeted weapons to theorizing that they were killed for being able to cure the terrorist's super weapon. Look back at this theory and remember one thing: The only actual facts here are that people who worked in some related fields of study died. How did we get from point A to point B Z?

Whenever things come up that we don't understand or that we don't want to accept, we often try to find ways to explain them to ourselves and each other. While we may not like to think about the fact that people die, they die of natural causes well before what we believe is their time. They die in tragic accidents. They even die horrifically at the hands of other people. It's much easier to think that there is some sort of nefarious plan to eliminate specific people and that if we can find and thwart this enemy, we can all be safe again than to realize that sometimes things don't happen for a real reason; they just happen.

Of course, just to be on the safe side, I'm going to update my resume seek a new career. Maybe I'll become a pastry chef, or blog full-time. Maybe I'll join the IFOCE.

Until later...