Research just published on bird flu (avian H5H1 influenza virus) has created a controversy to catch the attention of any teacher of TOK. Should the findings of science be censored for the public good, and, if so, who decides and according to what criteria? The US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) recommended last December that two papers on the topic of transmission of this flu virus between lab ferrets should be censored before being published on the grounds that “strains could be used by bioterrorists” and that “untrammelled proliferation of the work would raise the risk of an accidental release from a lab.” Counter-arguments, however, have prevailed: that it is extremely difficult to restrict access to the research, and that close surveillance of the work would be beneficial. Have a look at the article published online yesterday in Nature: “Mutant-flu paper published.”
Dr. Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of Nature, is quoted in an article from the BBC expressing deep concern about the very idea of censoring research and publication. “”If we are to go down the censorship route, how do you decide which researchers should get the sensitive information? And how can you realistically ensure that once it is in a university environment that it won’t go further?””
