vigilant TV

New Scientist reports on a debate over the ethics of publishing scientific papers that could include information useful in developing weapons. Some biologists, and to some extent governments, are concerned such information could aid terrorists in developing weapons. Critics say withholding papers, or censoring some details, could hinder important research – even censoring a paper that apparently has little application other than weapons development could hinder research into countermeasures. Some say the editors of scientific journals will act as rational censors, but it’s already common for researchers to counter the journals’ editorial bias by publishing papers on the web. Lesson: trying to control knowledge is not only futile, it is likely to do more harm than good.

As molecular biology grows ever more powerful, the risks will only
increase. Yet some argue that anything other than the most limited
restrictions would not only impede research, but could also help
terrorists by tying the hands of scientists trying to devise
countermeasures.

There are signs that the US government is backing off from its more
extreme position. After widespread criticism, for example, the
defence
department withdrew the directive requiring its scientists to submit
to review before publication. And after discussions with the
government, only one chapter of the NAS agroterrorism report was
restricted. Rather than the government drawing the line, the White
House wants to move to a system where scientists police themselves.

This is what most biologists want too. But there is little consensus
on what information to withhold or how to make such decisions. Even
the authors of the two controversial papers do not agree on the need
for censorship.

– New Scientist, Recipes for bioterror: censoring science.