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

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.

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.