Slashdot Mirror
Avian Flu Researcher Plans to Defy Dutch Ban On Publishing Paper
scibri writes "Ron Fouchier, one of the researchers involved in the controversy over whether to publish research on mutant versions of H5N1 bird flu, has said he plans to submit his paper to Science without applying for an export control license as demanded by the Dutch government. Failing to get the license means he could face penalties including up to six years in prison. Whether the paper falls under export-control laws is unclear. The Netherlands implements European Union (EU) legislation on export controls, which require an export permit for 'dual-use' materials and information — those that could have both legitimate and malicious uses — including those relating to dangerous pathogens. But the EU law allows an exception for 'basic scientific research' that is 'not primarily directed towards a specific practical aim or objective,' which Fouchier says should cover his work."
"everyone must take compulsory vaccine to avoid pandemic"
"those refusing will be held in 'quaranteen'"
Everybody else will become autistic.
I salute him for risking prison, he's doing the right thing. Censorship is evil, research perhaps most of all.
Government will try to paint a picture where the consequences of free association are worse than the consequences of oppression (yes, I said oppression) -- but those of us who think for ourselves already know the truth.
I'm guessing this respectable man (the scientist) thinks for himself. We need more of his type in this world, and less of the government type. MUCH less of the government type.
It's not like the guy is saying,
"Tomorrow at 8:00AM I'm going to rob the First PanNational Bank of Metropolis and there's nothing you coppers can do to stop me."
Rather, he is saying,
"I am going to submit my scientific research to a well respected journal in my field. I do not consider that an illegal act. I do however understand that my research is considered dangerous by some, so I want to appear to be the reasonable person in this situation."
Wouldn't that be most technology out there?
I mean, take anything and there's always a malicious use for it. A car can serve as transportation for someone (good), or as a quick getaway after committing a crime (bad).
The computer can be used to educate and communicate, or to create misery for others and steal (real cybercrime here). And that doesn't even involve the murkiness of copyright.
A camera can be used to document a crime, or to commit one (e.g., pedophillia creation).
A book can be used to educate, inform or provide entertainment, or to spread ugly rumors and how to make say, bombs to kill people.
Really - where's the line? This research can be used to spur new advances in medicine, or be used to create a mass plague.
Practically everything has a malicious use to it.
" ... he plans to submit his paper to Science ... "
Where it will be hidden behind a paywall
Seriously, why the fuck would he announce beforehand that he is planning on doing something illegal. If he was so hell-bent on releasing the info, wouldn't he be concerned that forewarning the authorities might cause them to act first and prevent the release?
This story does not add up.
well, if the authorities stop him from releasing the information, it's not his fault, not his choice to bow down before vague pressure to not publish - then at least there would be court about it, if it's legal and where such research could be done and who can do it and which scientists end up with gagging orders for what reasons.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
I am reading this not as a narrow legal dodge (it falls outside the laws) but as a broad claim of researching being able to freely publish scientific data without prior censorship, and thus a campaign of Civil Disobedience.
The point of Civil Disobedience is not to break unjust laws, it’s to change them. Read up on the theorist of your choice, but I am picking Gandhi’s Salt March. The idea is to state your case on why you think your action is just, announce you are doing it, then do it. The authorities then must public arrest you. Do it long enough, loud enough and the capricious law will crumble.
Anonymous Pirates take note. If you think IP laws should change (which I do), stand up and be counted, just don’t download the latest whatever. If you don’t do what you do with pride, people will just assume you are cheap unemployed people ripping off starving artistic.
And fuck the Americans too?
Initially the Dutch government had no problems with the scientists publishing their research.
It was the US government didn't want the paper to be published and they somehow made the Dutch government take the same stance on the issue.
(In Dutch) Article from University of Wageningen about the issue
Furthermore, because what prohibits anyone else to do research on the topic?
So for one... terrorists for sure won't try to publish their research.
And second, he probably has spent a good amount of time researching to be scooped by another researcher in another country that may not have the "exporting" issue.
Still, that doesn't mean is going to be published, and peer-reviewing will be in place, very likely if some consider is very interesting it will be published. Unless other hands wave at the paper and never gets published. (Yes, submitting doesn't mean publishing)
"rogue scientist unwittingly gives the terrorists their dream weapon"
Terrorists generally aren't too adept at molecular biology. Knowing the DNA sequence does not mean you'd be able to will it together in a functional virus. I'm a molecular biologist, and I wouldn't know where to start making this flu. Terrorists aren't even that advanced with conventional bombs. The 9/11 attacks, they didn't even actually HAVE a bomb, they just had box cutters and a promise that they did have a bomb.
While some government bent on censoring the internet obviously wouldn't care about the truth and might use it as an excuse anyway, it's also true that voters aren't too concerned about censoring the net anyway.
Why worry about science as an excuse, when saying "Child porn!" is a more effective cover for taking away free speech anyway?