(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)

From the Give Me a Break Department
01/13/2003

Instapundit links to a rant over on Sekimori. David, the ranter (I think), is incensed at an NPR report (Red Flag!) that the government is urging scientists to be prudent about what research they release.

David gives two examples: "a study on weaknesses in the modern American agricultural infrastructure" and "an immunologist whose paper on the structure and nature of virii was locked away because some of the work partially described the smallpox virus." Here's the "give me a break" passage:

This is one step away from anti-intellectualism, from seeing every "smart guy" as a potential threat to The People, a threat that is easier to eliminate than people in other countries who actually want to do the nation harm because the intellectuals are right here among us, and tend to be out of shape and easily winded. Plus, they're easy to spot, with their thick glasses and lack of social skills. So, why not just get rid of them and de-fang the true villains by proxy? And anyone who looks like he might be one of them, just to be on the safe side.

Hey, how about "smart guys" become smart enough to get a sense of boundaries? What gives scientists carte blanche to publicize whatever they've felt like studying? Why should only they, whose research has such a great effect on humanity, exist outside of society's ability to influence? Damn right they better censor themselves! Instapundit Glenn Reynolds puts it this way: "This cable is crucial, and if you cut it the whole grid goes down." (Of course, Mr. Reynolds goes on to say that "classifying science seems more dangerous." But I was under the impression that the government does classify some science.)

So how do David's examples compare with that measure? Well, the first example specifically points to weaknesses in an infrastructure (which I hope people who are allowed to look at the study are working to fix). The second example is a little too vague to judge. (How much did the paper deal with small pox? And what type of information did it disclose?) At any rate, there are always gray areas.

C'mon, now. This isn't rocket science... err... brain surgery. We've reached a point at which certain findings in the wrong hands can destroy the world. What frees scientists from the need to consider that reality? Perhaps all ethical and rational boundaries ought to just be thrown out the window. There is no good but knowledge and all knowledge is good, and all that baloney.

As for the bit about hunting down American intellectuals, it makes me wonder whether the entire post is a farce. Beside the fact that killing off scientists would retard U.S. progress, as well, suggesting that not all scientific findings are fit for public consumption is hardly "one step" from rounding up anybody with coke-bottle glasses.

Posted by Justin Katz @ 07:14 PM EST

1 Comment

Somebody doesn't understand how the government handles secrets. Keeping technical data secret doesn't mean they want to do away with technical data; to the contrary, to the extent it can be safeguarded means that innovation in certain areas is actually encouraged and actively investigated on the government's nickel. Where people will look ascance at nerds is if we (as I am a nerd) make new discoveries, blab, and have those discoveries misused.

Kevin Murphy @ 01/13/2003 09:45 PM EST