Science Editors Urge Nondisclosure Of Bioterror Info

Jeraph Mason writes "According to this story on ABC news, science editors want to censor their publications because terrorists may use them. It's the same argument used to prevent security disclosures from being published." There's also coverage on the BBC and at The Washington Post.

Comments

Censorship

[lastberserker]

science editors want to censor their publications

Let'em. As far as they don't censor mine it's all right.

Not quite the "same"

[J0ey4]

I fail to see how this is the "same" as security disclosures. When a software bug or security hole is released publicly, users and corporations have the option to either update or turn off the compromised products, and increases pressure on the proprietor of the offending product to fix it in due haste. The argument against censoring security disclosures is that you prevent people from doing things to protect themselves they could have done had they known of the problem.

OTOH, when scientifc research is published that allows chemical or biological weapons to be produced, there isn't anything joe consumer can do to protect himself because he saw the publication.

Believe me, I am an aspiring Ph.D. student and very anti-science censorship...but comparing it to software security censorship is like apples and oranges.

What does this mean for science?

[yar]

Honestly, what does this mean for the future of scientific research in these areas? The article describes this as the end of an "Age of Innocence" for science. The whole point of scientific research is that it advances upon previous discoveries. If these discoveries are obfuscated, who can say how this will impact research and future scientify study? They acknowledge that this would be a problem, but don't tell us what the actual impact will be.

Did the scientists study the effects of this move themselves? :P

Re:Don't be fooled

[Zeinfeld]

Case in point, see the last paragraph from the BBC

Everyone involved acknowledges the publication restraint is only part of the answer - there is nothing to stop scientists simply posting their research on the internet, for example.

First they didn't count the votes in Florida but I didn't protest because I didn't live in Florida.

Then they established military tribunals to try inconvenient cases without juries or appeal and I didn't protest because I wasn't foreign looking.

Then they declared prisoners of war illegal combatants but I didn't protest because I wasn't a prisoner of war.

Then they suspended habeas corpus, transfered prisoners to military jails without the right to see a lawyer, I didn't protest because they told me the prisoner was obviously guilty.

Then Ari Fleicher announced that 'people should take care of what they say', being a good citizen I decided to take care not to criticize the regime.

Then they told us that we should build shelters against biological attack using duct tape and plastic, yes really they did, I didn't protest because I have plenty of duct tape.

Then they told us that anyone protesting against a war against Iraq was allied with Saddam and Bin Laden, I did not protest.

Then they told us that publishing scientific information that contradicted the administration could not be published and I did not protest.

Then they armed their supporters claiming that the country needed a well regulated militia in case of internal dissent and I did not protest because I was affraid.

Then they cancelled the elections because they could only give comfort to the opponents of the administration and thus the opponents of American greatness and American power, I did not protest because they didn't count my vote last time.

No, we are not quite there yet, but haven't people noticed that we are getting close?

Ridiculous

[k98sven]

I don't even know where to start..

Maybe it's the fact that terrorists don't read scientific journals.

Why not? Because scientific journals present new research, and you don't need
new knowledge to produce biological and chemical weapons.
Sarin gas was first manufactured in 1938. Mustard gas long before that.
Almost anyone who has studied a fair amount of organic chemistry can make this stuff.
It's all common knowledge.

As for bioweapons.. the same thing goes. Making penicillin-resistant E. Coli takes undergraduate biotech skills.
(at least at my uni.)

Want to make botulism toxin, one of the most toxic substances known?
Leave a bottle of garlic in oil on top of your refrigerator for a few weeks.

Or maybe we should just ban education?
And books and libraries. Knowledge is dangerous, kids.