Editorial
DOI: 10.1002/prep.201480150
The Burden of Knowledge
O n April 15, 2013 at the Boston Marathon the United
States experienced the first terrorist bombing on its soil
since Eric Rudolph’s attack at the Summer Olympics on
July 27, 1996. During the almost 17 year span that separat-
ed those attacks the world had changed immeasurably. The
first anniversary of the Boston Marathon bombing seemed
timely for an entreaty to this technical community, which
dedicates its time and talents to the study of explosives sci-
ence and technology, stressing our universal obligation to
advance our field responsibly and with integrity.
I spent the first part of my professional career as a research-
er and chemistry professor at New Mexico Tech studying
the science of improvised explosives. It was during this
time it became apparent to me that little rigorous scientific
study had been conducted on these materials, and
a dearth of knowledge existed on their properties. Years of
research in this area eventually resulted in my being of-
fered a position with the FBI. In the capacity of a Forensic
Examiner in the field of Explosives and Hazardous Devices
and as a Senior Forensic Scientist for the FBI I have de-
ployed to horrific bombing scenes around the world col-
lected and examined evidence, testified in courts, conduct-
ed explosive research, and developed advanced training
courses and materials for bomb technicians. I have spent
my entire career living in the disparate worlds of the scien-
tific community and the operators in the field who daily go
into harm’s way. It is from this perspective that I write this
editorial.
T he phrase “ipsa scientia potestas est” or “knowledge
itself is power” first appears in the writing of Sir Francis
Bacon in 1597. Those who labor in the pursuit of knowl-
edge can become jaded to this profound fact, and lose per-
spective on the power they truly possess.
T he attack on the Boston Marathon was not conducted by
a highly trained cell of terrorists. It was perpetrated by two
young men whose technical acumen was largely derived
from an online magazine called Inspire. This publication,
created by Al Qaeda, was designed to provide knowledge
to the large body of would-be radicals yearning to play
a role in what they perceive is a war against their culture
and beliefs.
C ontained within the first issue of Inspire was an article en-
titled “How to Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom”.
Propellants Explos. Pyrotech. 2014, 39, 159 – 160  2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
It was from those rudimentary bomb making instructions
that the Boston Marathon bombs had their genesis.
S ources of knowledge can sometimes be surprising. For
less scientific experimentation surrounding improvised ex-
plosive materials, common social media sites such as You-
Tube provide rich content. Such sites abound with videos
produced by young experimentalists documenting their
prowess in explosive production. On the surface such activ-
ity may appear harmless (damage to countless household
appliances not withstanding). However, even though
knowledge resides beyond the bounds of morality, its ap-
plication does not share that luxury. Social media sites have
proven to be a fertile source of information for a variety of
people.
Terrorist groups have recognized the potential of social
media and have engaged in capturing videos and utilizing
them to produce training materials as seen in the provided
image. The still on the left is from a video originally posted
on YouTube of the detonation of 10 kg of ANFO. On the
right is seen the Arabic translation of the same video used
to educate Al Qaeda fighters in the field of explosives. This
one example illustrates the complex interconnectivity of
knowledge. Experiments being filmed and shared for enter-
tainment by America’s youth simultaneously aid and abet
its enemies. These videos are not simply about recreational
mayhem. Some of the YouTube videos contain very de-
tailed instructions on how to make explosives and impro-
vised explosive devices (IEDs) which are alarmingly sound.
T he most dangerous bomb makers are the ones who go
to great lengths to understand the science of explosives.
Figure 1. A video originally posted on YouTube (left) used to edu-
cate Al Qaeda fighters (right).
159
Editorial
Ibrahim al-Asiri, chief bomb-maker of al-Qaeda in the Arabi-
an Peninsula, studied X-ray imagery in detail before his at-
tempt to send two printers filled with explosives against in-
ternational targets.
A s good scientific articles transition from printed journals
to online venues, specialty knowledge becomes more ac-
cessible to everyone. I recently encountered a very well re-
searched and detailed article on-line focused on alternative-
ly fueled explosives produced from Ammonium Nitrate and
fuels such as sugar. The article provided details on opti-
mum particle sizes, charge diameters and oxygen balances.
While such information may not provide huge new insights
to the top bomb makers, it provides ideal details for those
whose level of expertise is not as matured.
A s a community, those engaged in research into explo-
sives need to be vigilant about knowledge management.
As a researcher and scientist who develops training pro-
grams and materials for military and law enforcement
bomb techs, I have often struggled with how much infor-
mation to pass on and what venues to select to do so.
Those who live in the world of science rarely get a glimpse
into the darker side of what their knowledge can produce.
To drive the point home, on October 1, 2005 I was de-
ployed to the University of Oklahoma where a young man
had blown himself up on a park bench outside a college
football game. Joel Henry Hinrichs III, the victim, was both
a bright and disturbed young man. He produced about 4
pounds of the improvised primary explosive Triacetone Tri-
peroxide (TATP) with which he ended his life. Hinrichs left
behind an apartment filled with unstable explosive com-
pounds that put the well-being of his neighbors and re-
sponding public safety personnel in jeopardy. The week
before he committed his final act, he downloaded an article
on TATP that provided a very detailed and sound synthesis
route. That article was written by a very highly regarded ex-
plosive scientist and published in this very journal.
Hinrichs stands as only one example. Bomb factories and
home labs of amateur experimentalists are found monthly
by law enforcement officers who must deal with their re-
mediation. Sophistication of these labs varies. During the
time frame I was preparing this editorial I was also assisting
bomb technicians deployed to a home lab where an exper-
imentalist was attempting to produce the more obscure ex-
plosive 1,1-diamino-2,2-dinitroethene (DADNE or FOX-7).
Journals on the cutting edge of explosive science can be
an inspiration to a broader group of readers than they
might realize.
160 www.pep.wiley-vch.de  2014 Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Kirk Yeager
W hile most home experimentalists do not possess any
intent to produce mass casualties, others who have access
to the same sources of information may not be as magna-
nimous. During the raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound,
various electronic media where recovered. In his possession
were open source technical articles from the very same sci-
entist whose PEP article Hinrichs based his explosive prepa-
ration on. The scientific community needs to be aware that
their work is being followed by a wide audience. Some of
whom possess intelligence, hatred and ill intent.
I am first and foremost a scientist and an educator. I value
both research and the open sharing of knowledge across
the scientific community. However, having seen such
knowledge filter into the darker recesses of society I believe
that it is our collective responsibility to ensure our com-
munity has an understanding of the potential unintended
consequences of such information sharing. I would be hard
pressed to say I had the solution on how to balance these
often conflicting interests.
T he best I can do is to provide some recommendations
based on experience. It would be well advised for anyone
producing an article to carefully think about inclusion of in-
structional facets such as: detailed synthesis/formulation
procedures, techniques for optimization of explosive ef-
fects, or technology vulnerabilities (such as gaps in detec-
tion capability). Sometimes creative solutions are required
to work around such restrictions. Personally, if I need to dis-
cuss a synthesis I will give generalities and provide a foot-
note stating details can be provided upon request. Other
times I will give a conference talk instead of producing
a journal article. Being cognizant of the issues at least pro-
duces informed decisions.
A ssume that everything published in open literature will
be available to an adversary intent on doing harm. Each of
us must make hard decisions on what level of comfort to
have in publishing research and testing results. I hope that
I have provided an understanding of the broader world the
explosive science community exists within, and maybe cre-
ated a chance for the community I hold in the highest
regard, to engage in an open dialog on this complicated
issue.
Dr. Kirk Yeager
Senior Forensic Scientist
United States Federal Bureau of Investigation
Propellants Explos. Pyrotech. 2014, 39, 159 – 160