Science vs. National Security

capt.Hij writes "The NY Times has an article about how scientific journals are struggling with how to avoid publishing information that might help bio-terrorists. Once people start deciding that knowledge should be held by only a few then we are sanctioning ignorance. This is scary when it comes to democracy and decision making."

Comments

come on

[tps12]

There's no reason to make this into more than it is. So a few patriotic scientists realize they're research could be destructive to mankind...isn't this a good thing? It's basically the kind of rational decision making that never happens at the beginning of science fiction movies.

We've all seen the dire predictions of what happens when technology "goes too far." 2001: A Space Odyssey, Godzilla, Jaws, Minority Report, the list goes on. So the handful of scientists who are researching the potentially dangerous stuff say, oh, okay, maybe we shouldn't be doing this stuff that might fall into the wrong hands, and you're complaining? Please.

The vast majority of scientists are working on good, useful technology and research, like cures for exotic diseases and inventions that will improve life for all. The few who are meddling where God did not intend are right to have second thoughts.

National Security

[AnalogBoy]

IMHO,

The nation was secure enough before this crap happened. Terrorism is going to happen one way or another.. What's that quote about tightening your grip on water?

This discussion on "National/Homeland Security" scares the bejeezus out of me normally.. And now we're discussing CENSORING INFORMATION!?

McCarthyism 2.0: Attack of the Republicans.

Re:National Security

[Anonymous Coward]

McCarthyism 2.0: Attack of the Republicans.

So not one Democrat voted for the Patriot Act? They're just totally free of any blame whatsoever with the war on terrorism? I see. Interesting position, and totally hypocritical, as usual.

Also, read the fucking article nimrod. It's about self-censorship, not government run forced censorship. In fact, this has been an ethical issue for scientists since the beginning. Dumbass.

Don't restrict information.

[Dthoma]

OK. Let's run through a quick scenario to demonstrate what is wrong with only allowing a few people to have a certain piece of dangerous knowledge.

If you withhold knowledge:

1. The discoverers keep the knowledge for themselves
2. They can use it with impunity
3. It has a devastating effect, since no one else has enough knowledge to develop a defence for it

If knowledge is in the public domain:

1. The discoverers distribute the knowledge to anyone who asks
2. Anyone can use it with impunity
3. However, the effects are greatly lessened, since everyone knows about the danger and knows what steps to take to reduce/eliminate it.

If you keep dangerous information secret, then it can be abused by a group of individuals much more readily. If everyone knows about something dangerous, then they can take precautions to prevent it (and those who are stupid enough not to will get hurt).