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

Don't restrict, classify

[headkase]

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

Re:Don't restrict, classify

[khb]

I don't think the good professor is purely concerned with bad people doing evil with science. From reading the article, it would seem that he is concerned that good people doing good research might inadvertently kill us all. So classification wouldn't help.

Restricting dangerous experiments to safe locations would. It seems to me that the professor is making a strong arguement for serious space colonization, for two reasons:

1) Doing some classes of nasty experiments on, say, neptune would greatly reduce the consequences to out of control experiments (e.g. nanobots and grey goo)

2) If the professor is right, that we only have a 50-50 chance of not destroying the earth in the "near" future, having a self sufficient backup colony or six would be prudent.

Pandora's Box.

[Adolatra]

Does the word "Pandora's Box" ring a bell to any of these people? Once a science becomes feasible, it's going to be explored. Better it be done by respectable, civilized scientists than underground organizations of questionable ethical bent.

I can see it now: "If nanotechnology is outlawed, only outlaws will have nanotechnology!"

Facetious, but nevertheless relevant.

Rabbit and the hare

[vwidiot]

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.

Re:Rabbit and the hare

[jemenake]

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

I think it's also a problem of, as soon as one (or a few) individuals "break rank" and start making great discoveries in those fields, then everyone will cave in. Interestingly, I think that this is partly why there's as much looting going on in Iraq right now. If you were a citizen who didn't really want to see a building looted, but you saw a bunch of your neighbors looting the place anyway, you're probably pretty likely to go get some for yourself because the alternative would still leave the place looted but your neighbors would end up with more stuff and you with less. Same goes with potentially harmful research.

The more I think about it, the more I think that the only solution is a political one. Let me explain...

These days, our (or, at least, my) biggest WMD worry isn't about countries with nukes or countries with nerve agents... it's about individuals with them. There are too many people to keep track of, and the technology is becoming more and more accessible to individuals. The only way to keep them from actually using them in some act of terrorism is to keep them from wanting to.

Terrorism is often an option of last resort. I'm sure that Palestinian suicide bombers would prefer it if they could just make a compelling verbal argument for their cause and actually be listened to. It sure would save all the hassle of getting fitted for a torso-bomb. The problem, of course, is that they don't feel like anyone's really listening to them when they try any of the less-drastic-than-suicide-bombing methods of communication.

So, I think the only way to prevent acts of terrorism is to have everone in the world feel that, for the most part, they are being listened to... that their needs aren't being ignored. Now, I'm not saying that this is necessarily easy to do. I do feel, however, that individual acts of terrorism (whether it is some postal worker going berzerk with a firearm or some dude mailing anthrax to people in Washington D.C....) are going to steadily increase until people stop feeling like they're being treated like cattle....

... and that requires political solutions, not technological ones.

Not censorship

[KDan]

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

Contrast with an earlier /. story...

[TheFrood]

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

How about..

[composer777]

addressing the grievances that might cause a certain group to use technology to do harm? Or am I supposed to believe that we are the only rational ones and the rest of the world is full of savages that need to be tamed? Our viewpoint of other countries sounds alot like present day colonialism if you ask me.

Here's some food for thought. If we don't address these grievances, then how can Rees so arrogantly believe that his book is going to make a bit of difference? Does he think that they are incapable of research? Does he think that they are going to say," Gee, Rees wrote a book, maybe we shouldn't use this technology or do our own research." It might slow terrorism down, but it's a stupid price to pay. It will only delay the inevitable UNLESS we address the problems rather than dropping bombs. The only thing that his proposal might do is further along the police state mentality that seems to be moving along quite well here in the US. He certainly won't stop terrorism.

If Science is Outlawed

[spun]

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.

Oh no, more Grey Goo worries!

[Saige]

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.

Re:Latest US Government cover-ups and lies

[-jaded-]

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.