Top Physicist Advocates Scientific Self-Censorship

spamania writes "The San Francisco Chronicle is running this article about a new book by Britain's astronomer royal, Sir Martin Rees, that advocates restricting scientific research in certain fields in the interest of public safety. In "Our Final Hour", Rees lends a sober, respectable voice to the oft-irrational ranting about nanotech, biotech, and other fields."

Comments

There's nothing quite like RTFA...

[WIAKywbfatw]

If research is truly dangerous then classify it. But not to research it only leaves you behind when other nations research it.

Hey, if you read the article then you would have understood Sir Martin Rees's reasons for recommending self-censorship. Here's a sample paragraph:

"Some experiments could conceivably threaten the entire Earth," he writes. "How close to zero should the claimed risk be before such experiments are sanctioned?"

He isn't talking about research that has potentially dangerous applications if it falls into the "wrong" hands, he's talking about potentially dangerous experiments. The kind of experiments where something going wrong could, say, create a minature black hole and thus destroy the planet.

When you're talking about an experiment going that wrong then you don't really give a damn who's performing it, "them" or "us".

Re:Latest US Government cover-ups and lies

[budgenator]

actualy the term depleted in this case means that the fissile U235 and Pu239 has been extracted, leaving only the non-fissile U233. In lay terms you can't use it for nuclear fuel, that's all. Any toxicity inherent in uranium is still present. We use it in anti-tank cannons because the stuff is much better at punching through thin armor than the much lighter lead w/ tungston core AP rounds do.