Credit: fsgm

Media censorship is always a contentious issue, but recently, the battleground has moved to scientific research.

According to an Economist article, “Influenza and its Complications,” the U.S’s National Scientific Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) asked the world’s two leading scientific journals, Science and Nature, to censor research on the H5N1 flu virus.

Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Centre, in Rotterdam, and Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin-Madison have been working on a strain of the avian flu that can be transmitted person-to-person and were on the verge of publishing their results. Fearing that the details of their work may be used as a bioterrorism blueprint, the NSABB asked for a moratorium on the publication of this work.

As a result, the World Health Organization met earlier this month to discuss how best to disseminate this “sensitive information” and carry out such research in the future. According to the New York Times, a panel of 22 experts convened in Geneva and ultimately, decided, against the U.S’s wishes, to continue the research and to publish the papers in their entirety.

For more background information, please see this CNN report:

This case raises three main issues:

1. To what extent should the government regulate the dissemination of scientific research?
2. To what extent should the government limit the nature of research?
3. To what extent are scientists ethically responsible for how their scientific findings are used?

I think that the answer to the first question is rather clear cut.  The government should be able to censor any publication (scientific or not) that poses an imminent threat to our national security interests.  Given that the publication of the details of this work could facilitate the development of a killer pandemic virus, its dissemination should be limited.  Terrorists may currently lack the technology to create this strain, but the information itself poses an “imminent” threat.

Although the WHO ruled that the “theoretical risk of the virus’s being used by terrorists is far outweighed by the ‘real and present danger’ of similar flu viruses in the wild, and by the need to study them and freely share information,” I disagree that the information should be open to the public.  If their argument is that this information is not dangerous because only experts with the right technology could engineer this virus, then shouldn’t the information be confined to these experts in the first place?  I doubt that most of Science and Nature’s readers could contribute meaningfully to the study and surveillance of the H5N1.  In this case, a need-to-know basis for dissemination is sufficient.

However, I don’t think that the government should have jurisdiction over the nature of the research that is conducted. Instead, it can exercise influence through other means such as grants and safety regulations. For example, Dr. Kawoaka’s lab is classified as Biosafety Level 3-Agriculture, the highest level at the university and half a notch below the top level anywhere of BSL4.  His facility is constructed according to standards established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and undergoes routine federal inspection for safety and security.  Moreover, has received over $17 million in funding from the National Insitute of Allergy and Infectious diseases, a branch of the National Institutes of Health.

With regard to the second question, the answer is less obvious.  If terrorists create a deadly strain of avian flu based on Fouchier and Kawaoka’s research, are these university scientists culpable?  Were the scientists on the Manhattan Project morally responsible for the deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I think that intentionality is the key.  Scientific research is meant to be a neutral field whose sole purpose is to advance knowledge. The aim of science is apolitical, as should be the driving intentions of scientists themselves. Although outside actors may manipulate scientific findings for good or evil means, science itself is supposed to be neutral.

Thus, insofar as Foucheir and Kawoka’s only intentions are the advancement of our knowledge on the H5N1 virus, I believe that they are not morally culpable for the application of their research.

That being said, given the realities of bioterrorism and today’s increasingly globalized world, it may be wise for scientists to submit to the “vetting” of their research in published works.  Science is no longer a bastion of knowledge and advancement but also a formidable weapon.

A proposed bill in Romania states that licensed witches could end up in jail if their predictions turned out to be false.

I know, curses!

But wait a second, what? If you have time, read through this super short report and after you’re done fretting over how the Romanian government officials are going to fight off the spells that are currently being placed on them, let’s take a second and think about this.

And yes, Professor Trelawney would be totally done for.

But, should this law also apply to weatherman? Sports announcers? Advisors? Marketing consultants? Why or why not?

Should a sports announcer be punished if her projections of the game outcome didn’t come true? Should a weatherman go to jail if his predictions turned out to be false? Or if a consultant’s advice turned out to be useless?

(If you are arguing that witchcraft isn’t scientific, here’s an interesting link that might redefine scientific)

I am assuming that the results do not cause harm to any parties, and if you still say yes to any of those above questions, what if the people willingly paid you to “help” them? They are in a way signing up for this and should understand the risk themselves. Sure, you can still say that witchcraft isn’t rigorously proven scientifically, but some people sincerely believe in it, and last time I checked, sports announcers don’t deliver 100% of their promises and they don’t end up in Azkaban for it (and we certainly can’t exclude the possibility of people lying about their birthdays to try to mess the witchcraft up).

I think the ideal situation is for the witches to spell out exactly what the risks are (no pun intended), but that would be like giving themselves a repelling jinx for customers – certainly bad for business. I don’t think their method of dumping poisonous mandrake is an effective method to change anything, and I understand the need to stop harmful superstitions. But I really don’t think people should go to jail for something like this if everything stays harmless. If the Romanian government is doing this because it wants to present a positive image to the rest of the world, they should look for other methods.