The U.S. government asked two leading scientific journals not to publish details of new research into the deadly bird flu. They worry the information could serve as a blueprint to aid terrorists in creating a biological weapon. But is it ethical to suppress the science? And in today’s internet age, is it even possible to keep the information from getting out?

Bruce Alberts, editor-in-chief of Science (journal)
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Michael Specter, staff writer for The New Yorker
Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences

  • Worf

    Yes, let’s keep everything from the public, just like in the USSR the public has no need to know about why they’re getting sick from corporate fracking fluids, why the dollar is weakened due to corporate Wall St fraud and gambling, why the corporate news is easily debunked by the facts, and why the corporate military industrial complex has been planning for decades to round up dissidents under plans like REX-84 and Operation Garden Plot.

  • Gerald Fnord

    Science doesn’t work well without free exchange of information, so I think wanting good science whilst trying to pull this is off is a mug’s game.

    Beside that, labelling some research ‘too dangerous’ as good as creates a “Here! Look for/at this!!” marker on it.  It can in fact make it initially harder to get, but no security is permanent, and all research exists as a part of a universe as such…missing pieces stand out.

    • Worf

      This follows the ever-increasing trend in societies globally, where your local 1% faction considers the 99% to be easy dupes who ought to be manipulated and left in the dark, like in China and the USSR. Despotic types always embrace the same desperate plan.

      • Gerald Fnord

        It’s not ever-increasing:  it in fact rules us much less than it used to…but that makes where it is still extant all the more ugly and noticeable.

        Keeping O(99%) of the population in the dark was long considered the _right_ of all political and religious authorities, given that the rest of society could not be trusted to make the right decisions (that is, those in the interests of the O(1%)).  It is only recently in human history, at least post-agricultural, that any significant faction of the population had any kind of noticeable say in their destinies.

        Maybe this is partially what’s behind modern rates of depression and other forms of mental illness:  just as our ancestors never got enough starch or sugar, much less excessive amounts of it, with the result that we easily develop Type II diabetes now that we can, I think that many of us (and I include myself) aren’t psychically prepared for the weight of our decisions, as well as the weight of those which are still not really ours but which dogma would have us think are so (e.g., Herman Caine’s claim that if we’re not rich it’s our own damned fault).

  • CaptainKirk

    Police-state oppression always start with something that sounds vaguely plausible, and sympathetic “experts” are trotted out to justify official oppression, so that anyone who questions it can be easily condemned or even threatened.

    But then before you blink, they’ve made everything classified, they’ve jailed researchers who aren’t towing the corporate line, and free speech is gone. You can be sure that corporate criminals like Monsanto are salivating over the prospect of muzzling scientists…

    Before you know it, the police will be arresting large numbers of dissidents, including scientists, and claiming they were infected or some other fabrication.

    FYI, the evidence is clear: 9/11 was perpetrated by the military industrial complex. See

  • Lauren Ayers

    Please talk about the people who don’t get the flu in a pandemic.  What
    do they have going for them?  Why can’t all people have that same set of

    In other words, what if some people’s strong immunity could be available to all?

    Those who oppose vaccinations are dismissed as nuts, but the
    adjuvants and other built-in problems with vaccinations, which deposit
    strong chemicals right in the blood, on the other side of nature’s
    protective walls, have their less well-known problems.  What if being D
    replete, DHA-EPA-replete, vitamin A-replete make us so healthy that
    Mother Nature’s systems turns away the germs?

    Surely it’s worth a look, although the downside is that it won’t make huge profits for Big Pharma.  Just sayin’…..

    More info at:

    • Mrs Dagny Mouch

      Yes, you are in fact ‘just saying’:  you are presenting a rosy scenario not backed by peer-reviewed research whilst making dark intimations about Big Pharma—which is too powerful and too profit-driven, but hardly powerful enough to stop a simple dietary prescription from spreading quickly.  You are just saying, not making a decent argument based on evidence and reason, your only good guides to the actual universe.  

      >What if being D 
      >replete, DHA-EPA-replete, vitamin A-replete make us so healthy that 
      >Mother Nature’s systems turns away the germs? 

      Germs are part of ‘”Mother Nature”‘s systems’, and no-one cuts them any slack ever…so if we did do all those things, the germs that could get around that would, and would breed and prosper, and we would be back to needing more research.

      And I’m not ‘just saying’…I’m saying something and pointing to evidence of how things really work, not (literally) romantic, religious, and (to be redundant) misguided notions that accept Nature only as pangenetor but not panphage.  Nature has no morality, and cares not a jot for us—ask any mouse my lovely cat tortures to death, ask a caterpillar writhing with wasp parasites, ask a fourteen-year-old with zits.

  • Rashaw

    I think this idea of ‘restricted’ information is being optimistic about the ability to control information. The info is now public and know that it is possible, people can find a way to replicate.

    How do you plan to address the risk that is known now if this were in terrorists hands?

  • PrintDeutschmarks

    It would be smarter to defeat the causes of war, such as globalist corporate oppression and infectious religious fanaticism, than to compound the problem by using police-state censorship to try to keep secrets. The fact that war and censorship are escalating tells you that the wrong people are winning and intelligent people are giving them credit they do not deserve.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor