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

Re:Sad.

[Genady]

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.

What you mean like "We're going to rid Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction" to "We're liberating the Iraqi people" to "We're taking the war to the terrorists on their turf" to "Iraq is the primary front in the War on Terror"? Please. These people change their policy more often than most Slashdotters change their underwear. And not to single old Rummy out Ashcroft goes from protecting us from the terrorists to protecting us from internet porn, to protecting us from Tommy Chong's Bongsite.

The qualities we need for homeland security are the same that they can deploy in our research and development sector.

You mean like pandering to corporate interests and doing research that increases the profit margins of large corporations that fund the research?

It's a free world and we still can't controll their behavior as much as we would like, but blaiming DHS becasue of others people misery is a bit naive and "conspiracyish".

If you'd get your head out of the sand long enough to look around you'd realize that the DHS and Justice department are fighting Congress for control of our behavior.

The founding fathers newer intended that our intel should be perfect or our state leaders shoul be a genious, all they wanted was someone that tried to protect the constitution.

Bravo! I agree, which is why we need John Ashcroft, attacker of the constitution, out of the DOJ as soon as possible.

Re:-1 Wrong

[Pave Low]

Using Michael Moore as a source pretty much says it all. He is not credible or trustworthy, you can find many dozens of sites that demonstrate how he twists and bends facts and quotes.

He told us the the world had changed in a fundamental way, and that we had to give up our freedom because of it.

As far as the second point, he didn't say it, but did it.

Nice backtracking there.

Finally, I'd like to know how I can cite or prove something that was NOT said or done. The burden of proof is on you.