Security Versus Science

dogfrt writes "According to this Wired News article, post-9/11 homeland security has had a decidedly negative effect on US scientific research. In specific, researchers are self-censoring what they publish, talented foreign students are being denied visas (approximately 20%, according to one source in the article), and researchers are avoiding work with dangerous pathogens, choosing more innocuous micro-organisms."

Comments

Sad.

[cgranade]

Sad, esp. considering how artifical such security is anyway. Frankly, with Ashcroft and Ridge at the helm, I trust the DHS less than what they ostensibly fight against... That aside, if we refuse to allow talented people into our country, what's that do but force them to work for our competitors and perhaps even enemies? Lovely bit of intel there. Oh, well. No one ever accused the Bush administration of having a collective brain cell.

Re:Sad.

[cgranade]

Do you seriously trust Ascroft less than Osama Bin Laden? Do you seriously trust that madman more that a God loving patriot willing to to sacrifise some false sense of securuity in order to maintain our freedom and power to strike back against our enemies? Whatever your opinion on Ascroft and Rumsfeld is; the fact is that they are person's you can trust simply because they are consistent in their policy over time, not jsut in a short glimpse of second. The qualities we need for homeland security are the same that they can deploy in our research and development sector.
Let me take these one at a time.

1. Yes. I know what they want. I know what motivates them. Envy of economic status that transforms to hatred. As for Ashcroft, he attacks us on a level far more dangerous than a hijacked planes. A plane can remove your life. Ashcroft tried to remove the meaning of your life.
2. This would be easier to answer if it were written a little bit more clearly, but in short, Ashcroft is not a patriot. He is a fascist who hides behind a tainted flag. No more, no less.
3. Trust someone who arrests nuns because they protest foriegn policy? Trust the mastermind behind the PATRIOT ACT? I would rather trust... myself. I don't know who else to trust in this case.
4. Science should not be constrained by security. Science is not a weapon to be guarded. The application of scientific knowledge to weaponry is a different issue, but the moment the gov't controls what science is conducted by such a powerful means as this, we start getting that a reasearcher that finds evidence of global warning gets arrested to protect the petrochemical industry. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but how can I help but be one in this day and age?

Security through Obscurity

[sunaj]

This is something I've beleived for a long time. Security through obscurity (i.e. preventing reserach in areas that may be dangerous), just does not work.

Re:Differnet times for a different world

[wmspringer]

Yes...they're making an effort to make these decisions, on account of they could be arrested if they don't :-p

Why?

[EvilBit]

Why do they feel terrorists could use their work? So far they have been using such advanced technology as trucks loaded with manure, a box-cutter and some homemade explosives.

Overall they're doing the right thing, but I can't help but feel they're doing it for the wrong reason.

Article Overstates effects of Visa restrictions

[Anonymous Coward]

1) the quoted article said 20% of students in physics were having trouble entering the US--that is a long ways from saying they didn't enter all all.

2) There is a real question of if the open borders policy has really helped US science in a meaningful way from the 20's-50's the US had a fairly strict immigration policy and quite a bit of science happened in the US. Right now the US has a serious problem of underutilizatin of native US technical/scientific talent.

Re:What a hallucinatory rant

[ndogg]

Utterly ridiculous. So we should disseminate all data? No matter what it could be used for?

Science creates tools, means to ends, not ends in themselves. Tools have no morality in and of themselves, and so therefore their research should not be judged based upon what they could be used for. Final, production level products of that research, can and should be scrutinized for what they could be used for.

One wonders your position on gun control - to be consistent you'd have to support complete unfettered access to firearms. Somehow I doubt that.

This, too, is pure ad hominem bullshit. The parent would not have to support complete unfettered access to firearms to be consistent. It's one thing to allow researchers unfettered access to materials for their research, but rather different to allow the end product of that research to be available to anyone.

Re:And how exactly do POWs held without a trial

[rich_r]

POWs I believe you mean 'illegal combatants'. POWs have very clear rights as laid down by the geneva convention. 'Illegal Comabatant' is a highly nebulous term which is being used to deny these individuals their basic human rights. These include lack of legal advice, no contact with their respective embassies and cases of alleged torture.