I think it's hard to underestimate the degree to which our knowledge of biology has changed in the last 60 years. I'm sure there was the thought that something could go wrong, as almost always that's the case. That it would kill someone, I don't think that was a possibility in their minds. Nonetheless the outrage here still isn't correlated with risk including the risks that for instance the current use of antibiotics on livestock introduce. If you want outrage, be outraged that we're destroying the main thing we have to protect ourselves against these sorts of threats.
> I think it's hard to underestimate the degree to which our knowledge of biology has changed [...]
That's not the issue. That relates to us understanding why it's dangerous. But wondering if it's dangerous and testing small and willing populations at first is something we knew how to do back then too.
> That it would kill someone, I don't think that was a possibility in their minds.
If they thought it was harmless they'd have tested it at the military base first.
> If you want outrage, be outraged that [...]
I don't, thanks. And I don't appreciate the redirect. (I agree, but it's not the topic.)
