Slashdot Mirror
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."
technology has potential to annihilate
...as well as the potential to protect us from annihilation.
I can see it now: "If nanotechnology is outlawed, only outlaws will have nanotechnology!"
Facetious, but nevertheless relevant.
Not all scientists will self-censor, nor are all scientists working toward the greater good. Sometimes it's not their choice (see: Germany, 1940, and Iraq, 1988) to censor themselves.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Seems to me if you restrict research, not everybody will comply. This will lead to someone other than ourselves having a headstart on the research. The research will be done by SOMEONE so it might as well be us.
The usual over-sensationalistic /. headline is, as usual, over-sensationalistic. This is not censorship, but self-control and self-direction. It's not about not publishing things which exist and have been researched (that would be censorship), but about deliberately avoiding avenues of research which are too dangerous given our current rather low level of social evolution.
However, it's very hard to decide which avenues of research should be avoided. Biotechnology, Nanotechnology and all that promise great benefits, potentially helping us progress socially much faster (eliminating hunger and disease wouldn't do us much harm socially, would it?). The only ones that should clearly be avoided are clear-cut cases like nerve agents, genetic creation of deadly diseases, and all that. Otherwise, it makes little sense to restrain research in other directions...
Daniel
Carpe Diem
This makes an interesting counterpoint to an article from last week about an editorial by Sheldon Pacotti, one of the designers of Deus Ex. Rees seems to think self-censorship is the best defense, while Pacotti thinks it's best to spread the knowledge far and wide, so that everybody has the information necessary to devise defenses against technological threats.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
...we would still be living in caves. Seriously, because some things may lead to something which could be warped to 'bad' uses, we should halt the progress of science?
Knowledge on it's own can not be defined as 'good' or 'bad' - it just is. It is what we use the knowledge for that can be judged on a moral level. And what some people consider to be a 'good' use, other people may see as 'bad' or even 'evil' use of the knowledge.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
Only outlaws will have science. By restricting access to certain types of research, we limit knowledge in those fields, making it more likely that we will not be able to discover antidotes to technological mishaps. Will it reduce the chance of those mishaps? I doubt it. If the process of scientific discovery was exact and well known, perhaps, but simply limiting information won't stop progress. Who knows where crucial breakthroughs in, say, nanotechnology will come from? If we limit access to scientific knowledge off all fields that might lead to the development of "grey goo" we will stagnate, and won't garauntee that "grey goo" won't get made. All we will garauntee is that we won't know how to fight it if it does get made.
Maybe if we did away with the massive iniequalities that fuel destructive behavior we won't need to limit access to knowledge, because no one will have any reason to destroy. There may still be accidents, but limiting access to information because of possible accidents is like the proverbial ostrich sticking its head in the sand to escape detection. Just because the ostrich doesn't see the lion sneaking up on him doesn't mean he isn't about to become lunch.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I am really getting frustrated by the amount of traction the whole "grey goo" meme is getting.
Sure, it's possible that when nanotechnology gets going, that somehow a nanomachine that can convert just about any material to energy and raw materials to copy itself could be accidentally created. It could then convert the entire Earth and everything on it to copies of itself. It's POSSIBLE.
But then again, it's also possible that some species of bacteria could mutate and start doing the same things. And it's probably not any less likely than a nanomachine doing it.
A machine that could convert just about anything on the planet into useful materials, and duplicate itself endlessly, would probably be difficult to make INTENTIONALLY, let alone accidentally. It would also be extremely easy to insert safeguards to prevent anything like that from happening. Either require the presence of a particular molecule for the machines to duplicate themselves. Add replication limits to the nanomachines. Never include self-replication in the same nanomachine as one that can break down most/all things into raw materials.
Unless nanoengineers are incredibly sloppy, maliciously so, then it's not going to happen by accident.
INTENTIONAL creation of such machines is an issue of higher importance. And the type of people who would make such nanomachines are not the type who are going to listen to people saying "we can't research/develop this technology, it might be dangerous". Would a law against using aircraft for suicidal terrorism have stopped Al Queda from taking down the WTC? Nope.
The best chance at preventing/defending against such actions is to develop the technology and focus some research on using it to prevent such uses. Not saying "stop all research!"
Now, I would be enormously in favor of a global treaty banning research into nanotechnological weapons. The thought of militaries working with such technologies does scare me.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
I find it interesting that this man is an astronomer. I guess he figures that his particular branch of science will never be considered "dangerous" and need to be "limited", unlike those other blighters in physics.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Isn't it funny how the US military conveniently forgets Vietnam whenever it wants to? Agent Orange any one?
If memory serves, Agent Orange was a defoliant and not a chemical weapon. It's kind of like complaining about the Orkin man using chemical weapons: technically true but not really what is meant by a chemical weapon. Sure there were probably people in the jungles that were defoliated but its not anything like dropping a nice efficient nerve agent.
I'm really curious about how long it's going to take people to accuse the US military of chemical warfare because so many people are dying of lead poisoning.
-jaded- walking the earth as a living corpse is in somewhat questionable taste
Exactly. There is no security in obscurity or ignorance. The only way to know how dangerous something is -- and to learn how to deal with it if it is dangerous -- is to study it.
..." Regrettable, but I suppose it's part of human nature.
... yes, the risks are real, but the potential rewards are so great that it would be criminal either for scientists to restrict themselves or laws and/or social pressure to lay restrictions on them.
As for the "some experiments could destroy the earth" bit (really just a variant on There Are Things Man Was Not Meant To Know) IMO Rees is doing the typical crochety-old-scientist act. An awful lot of scientists who do brilliant work when they're younger seem to adopt an attitude of "Well, the search for knowledge was all well and good in my day, but you kids these days
I can't think of a single area of research in which the benefits of aggressive experimentation and open reporting don't outweight the risks. Not a single one. Biotech, nanotech, high-energy physics
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
>
> "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".
Hey, if you look at cave paintings then you would grok Shaman Roa's big think for banish Caveman Og:
"Og's big fire think scary. Fire could burninate entire grassland where tribe hunt all meat things", Roa speak. "Fire come from Gods, not tribe! Roa know Gods, Roa eat happy mushrooms, talk to Gods every day! Og not talk to Gods, he too busy with fire think. Roa not want Og make Gods angry with two stick rubbing thing! Tell Og put sticks down!"
Og's fire think not scary-but-good because fire keep tigers away at night. What if Gods angry, make Og drop fire? Og burninate all grass! No grass, no antelope, no fruit! Whole world burninate! Like three rainy season ago when Gods sent fire from sky, burninated grassland! Half of tribe starve!
Og's fire think bad. Roa know! If Og not care what Roa think, Shaman Roa say send Og away forever!