Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

After September 11 and Bali - how dangerous are scientific publications?

By Bea Duffield - posted Friday, 14 February 2003


On one hand, it can be argued that restricting publication of scientific information would hinder advances in biosciences that might lead to therapeutic benefits. On the other hand, publishing bio-sensitive research in freely available literature could assist rogue countries and organisations develop new types of biological weapons.

At present, scientific research is subject to numerous ethical guidelines and regulations, and submissions to scientific journals are subjected to rigorous peer review. Also, most organisations impose commercial-in-confidence restrictions on research before it can even be considered for publication. Some recent think-tanks suggest that, as well as the above, research relating to potentially bio-terrorist sensitive pathogens and toxins should be subjected to some type of risk monitoring system prior to publication.

The inherent difficulties in this would be to get scientific journals and universities agreeing to this form of censorship where the Government and/or scientific journals themselves become guardians of sensitive material. Another difficulty would be convincing scientists to take on the responsibility of reviewing potentially sensitive papers. Moreover, it would be a legal and professional nightmare for journals, with minimal benefits.

Advertisement

Given that published journals are only one example of the wide range of potential outlets for communicating research findings, sensitive information could not be embargoed effectively unless the author was persuaded not to distribute it publicly in any form. E-mail, postings on the World Wide Web and oral presentations at scientific meetings may, in the long run, prove to be far more dangerous than publications in scientific journals.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Bea Duffield is General Manager of the Office of the Chief Scientist, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, which is a member of National Forum.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Bea Duffield
Related Links
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering
Queensland Department of Primary Industries
Photo of Bea Duffield
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy