Censorship, Ethics? Common sense too!
Looks like there's been an intervention. First, headlined 'Bird flu: Research row as US raises terror fears' and opens with:
Quote:
The authors of two controversial bird flu studies have reportedly agreed to a US request to redact key details after a government advisory panel suggested the data could be used by terrorists.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16279365
Secondly, headlined 'When should science be censored?', a more reflective article, which includes both sides arguments; although my eye caught this snippet:
Quote:
building ethics into the work of scientists, and relying on journal editors to exercise caution.
Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16275946
Is the title fit for purpose?
I am not sure that this thread's title is fit for purpose now. Yes there are several initial posts on the bio threat and recently we have returned to the issues around the scientific pursuit of biological threats. It is almost as if the title should be Assessing Biological weapons & threats: the insider threat.:wry:
News Science Infectious diseases Scientists condemn 'crazy, dangerous'
Once again research scientists take a risk, yes one within their standard defences and thsi time @ University Wisconsin-Madison.
The article starts:
Quote:
Scientists have created a life-threatening virus that closely resembles the 1918 Spanish flu strain that killed an estimated 50m people in an experiment labelled as "crazy" by opponents.
US researchers said the experiments were crucial for understanding the public health risk posed by viruses currently circulating in wild birds, but critics condemned the studies as dangerous and called on funders to stop the work.
A British scientist's view:
Quote:
The work they are doing is absolutely crazy. The whole thing is exceedingly dangerous...Yes, there is a danger, but it's not arising form the viruses out there in the animals, it's arising from the labs of grossly ambitious people.
Link:http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...MCNEWEML6619I2