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

Great.

[mrseigen]

I feel really secure knowing that security by obfuscation and overblown terrorism fears, my two favorite things in all the world, are finally together.

Not going to work

[Anonymous Coward]

How many average Joe's knew what a nuclear dirty bomb was 2 years ago? How many terrorists knew? The terrorists have had access to far more dangerous information (i.e. CIA handbooks from the 1980s), and have decided to get educated enough to be able to come up with their own scientifically-sound methods of mass destruction. There are terrorists out there that I'm sure could *write* for these science journals. All this policy does is create ignorant bliss among the masses as to the possible terrorist risks that exist.

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?

It's *not* the government, this time

[trmj]

According to the article, it's the editors of the science journals that wat to censor their content. Not the government or some other organization wanting to censor it for them.

This isn't as big an issue as it sounds. People censor themselves all the time: it's called being polite ("Don't have anything nice to say? Then don't say anything at all." Yeah, right).

It's not MS saying they want to censor 2600 from ppublishing content that might expose vulnrabilities in their software.

It's not the government saying they want to censor Slashdot because most people here think Bush is a confused muppet.

Let them censor themselves. They might just do it so much that they don't have any readers left.

And by the same logic...

[assaultriflesforfree]

Rand McNalley should censor their maps of cities, omitting key terrorist targets.

This is retarded. The real danger, as I see it, is in keeping science secret, and not just due to concerns for public health (a very valid point). Allowing government policy to steer the direction of popular science is one of the greatest threats to our freedom.

Similar "arguments" to this one are made over encryption systems, because they might be used by criminals and terrorists to hide what they're doing. The "logic" bleeds into countless other debates as well, and the end conclusion always involves the government getting more control over what you can say and how you can say it.

Now, they look to seriously hinder all biological research. Who's going to spend years and grant money working on projects when they won't even get published? And for how long will this censorship go on? A couple years? That's probably enough to seriously diminish the number of fresh students entering the field. Let it go on longer, and in another 10 years we might not have any doctors.

Science is interdependent. You can't cut off your star running back's leg and expect him to keep scoring touchdowns for you. It just doesn't work.

Re:And by the same logic...

[Zeinfeld]

Rand McNalley should censor their maps of cities, omitting key terrorist targets.

They do.

Try finding army bases on UK ordanance survey maps. Quite often they are missing and in other cases they are shown quite a way from their actual location.

This tactic worked quite well in WWII, less well when satelite reconasaince became possible and not at all well in the days of GPS.

That is why you are likely to find yourself in big trouble if you go near an army base with a GPS receiver in many countries, including many NATO allies.

Now the ordinance survey is a military outfit and always has been so it is self censorship, however that is not the only issue here. The problem is that this administration has repeatedly demonstrated that it will tell any lie to get its policy through, take for example the tax cut which was passed on the promise it would not cause a deficit - even though non-partisan estimates already showed the economy headed for deficit before 9/11.

As Ari Fleicher put it 'people need to be carefull about what they say'. This is an administration that will use any means to stop publication of undesired news.

Chemical and Biological Weapons in 21 days

[KoolDude]

Note: This post has been deleted to prevent exploitation by terrorists reading Slashdot.

Re:same but different

[Waffle Iron]

It's a little different, though. It's much harder to issue a security patch for the human body.

Given the skyrocketing sales of duct tape this past week, I'm guessing there's a lot of people who are going to try patching anyway.

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.