Sir — It has been suggested that the bestway for the United States to keep biotechnology-enhanced biologicalweapons away from terrorist groups is forit to support related research and trainingonly for US scientists (see, for example,Nature 414, 3–4; 2001). We do not believesuch an isolationist attitude to be useful.Increasing research support and trainingin biotechnology and genomics toscientists in the developing world may bethe best way to prevent bioweapon attackson the United States and its allies.

Inadequate funding by northernscientific bodies — of other scientificdisciplines as well as genomics andbiotechnology — marginalizes southernscientists and widens the gap betweennorthern and southern scientists’mindsets. If southern scientists are given astake in the northern system, throughsponsored research opportunities, itsscientists will be less likely to want to helpterrorist actions against northern interests.

Southern scientists are, of course,

making significant novel contributions toscience, which could include assisting thedevelopment of biodefence strategies.Their contributions are not only welcome,but enhanced northern research supportcould also challenge the stereotype that thenorth does not have the interests of thesouth at heart — a view propagated byanti-northern extremist groups. Scientistseverywhere, south or north, need to beaware of the regulatory and ethicalimplications of bioweapon proliferation.Sponsored training by northern fundingagencies is the best way to achieve this end.

Such training in genomics and biotech-nology could be made conditional uponsuch scientists passing stringentintelligence review and verification by thesponsoring institution or its authorizedrepresentative, and their states beingsignatories to chemical- and biological-warfare conventions and protocols. Giventhe potential trade and investmentopportunities that come with a skilled,biotechnologically competent workforce,

sponsoring advanced training of southernscientists in genomics or biotechnologycould serve as an incentive for countries tosign and comply with the conventions.

The Fogarty International Center of theUS National Institutes of Health (NIH) hasbudgeted approximately $45 million forthe training of international scientists forfiscal year 2002–03. Although thisapproach is commendable, apart from thedilution of the money over all the sub-disciplines in health, the amount isminuscule compared with the $1.75 billionthe US government has allocated to theNIH for biodefence research alone in 2003.Increasing research support and trainingin biotechnology and genomics wouldmake it easier for northern scientists to sayto their southern colleagues: “We’re actingwith you, so don’t act against us.” Jerome A. Singh*†, Peter A. Singer†*Howard College School of Law, University ofNatal, Durban, 4041, South Africa†University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, 88 College Street, Toronto M5G 1L4, Canada

correspondence

NATURE | VOL 420 | 12 DECEMBER 2002 | www.nature.com/nature 605

Isolationism is not the answer to bioterrorismIncreased support for research in the developing world would be a better strategy.

Schools can be inspiredby a summer of science Sir — We appreciated reading yourrecommendation that other universitiesshould promote initiatives like thoseoffered in the United States, to “give youngpeople enough of a glimpse of the world ofscience to be enticed further into it”. Inparticular, we liked your suggestion thatresearch facilities should invite secondary-school students to their laboratoriesduring the summer holidays (see Nature419, 233; 2002).

In Portugal, research institutes havebeen providing summer internships forsecondary-school students for severalyears now, with the support of EuropeanRegional Development Funds and thePortuguese government (see www.cienciaviva.pt). Students work in researchlaboratories, where they are given specificsimple scientific tasks, sometimesincluding field work, for one week ormore. The aim is to give them a clear ideaof the realities of research in topicsincluding mathematics, biotechnology,robotics and cancer. Several of the bestPortuguese scientific institutes participatein this activity on a regular basis, and bothstudents and researchers have found it tobe a very positive experience.

Last summer, a similar initiative wasextended to secondary-school teachers,who are given a chance to work with state-

of-the-art laboratory equipment and learnabout the most recent developments inscientific and technological research.Rosalia Vargas, Ana NoronhaCiência Viva — National Agency for Scientific andTechnological Culture, Pavilion of Knowledge,Parque das Nações, Alameda dos Oceanos, 1990-223 Lisboa, Portugal

What has posterity donefor us? It’s not the point Sir — To understand why many physicalscientists regard economists withscepticism, one need look no further thanthe Concepts essay on discounting (“Aneye on the future” Nature 419, 673–674;2002) by L. H. Goulder and R. N. Stavins.After describing an example in which a $4-billion investment now would preventus from causing $800 billion of environ-mental damage 100 years hence, they ask:“If future generations do not actuallycompensate the present one, is it stillappropriate to enact the policy?”

Who but an economist could imaginethat future generations would owe us animpossible debt for not damaging theirenvironment? Isn’t it we who owe futuregenerations a sound environment?Discounting provides a well-definedmeasure relating present and future sums.

The problem is that this measure is notparticularly useful for problems involvingintergenerational transfer.Ken CaldeiraClimate and Carbon Cycle Group, Energy andEnvironment Directorate, Lawrence LivermoreNational Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, L-103,Livermore, California 94550, USA

Goulder and Stavins reply — We agree with Caldeira’s view that it would be unfair to require future generations to pay the present generation for the costs ofcurrent climate policy. Our example wasmeant to illustrate complications that arisein evaluating policy options involvingwinners and losers.

Caldeira goes on to claim thatdiscounting (and benefit–cost analysis) is not useful for problems with intergener-ational impacts. Here we differ. Theaggregate policy-generated gains andlosses, translated by discounting intocomparable units, are highly relevant for assessing public policies. But weemphasize here, as in our essay, that otherconsiderations — including attention toother criteria of fairness — are importantin policy evaluation.Lawrence H. Goulder*, Robert N. Stavins†*Department of Economics, Stanford University,Stanford, California 94305-6072†John F. Kennedy School of Government, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, USA

© 2002 Nature Publishing Group