Yes, says Michael Parker, professor of bioethics, University of Oxford
Science should sometimes be censored, even though sharing data is vital to the growth of scientific knowledge and understanding, which may lead to great things. On the plus side, sharing data may lead, for example, to the development of new treatments for cancer or more efficient fuels. It has the potential to make our lives better than they would otherwise be. But how strong the obligation to share scientific data is depends on how valuable the growth of scientific understanding that resulted from it would be.
It is not fanciful to imagine that there may be data that have no realistic possibility of being of value, but which could be in conflict with what we consider to be valuable if shared. Consider the following two hypothetical examples: scientists come to realise that the most likely use of their new model organism would be in the deliberate causing of agonising death to anyone exposed to it. Or, scientists in a developing country realise that releasing data immediately, rather than waiting six months, would lead to its exploitation by rich institutions and to the undermining of emerging scientific capacityin arenas where money is much less plentiful.
If it is possible that real examples exist in which sharing data would be inherently or predictably harmful or unjust, this suggests that there may be situations in which censorship or delayed publication are either morally required or call for serious consideration.
While, clearly, scientific data should usually be freely available, there are likely to be a number of occasions when we would judge that this would be unethical. Scientists, funders and journal editors do have a responsibility to use their judgement about the activities and potential abuses of modern science.
Advertisement
Michael Parker is director of the Ethox Centre and the author of Ethical Problems and Genetics Practice, published by Cambridge University Press, £55.
No, says Professor Wendy Barclay, Chair in Influenza Virology, Imperial College London
Scientific censorship would hinder advancement. The cost to progress would outweigh the risks to public health or national security. Science moves forward by cross-fertilisation of ideas. Fragments of knowledge, like pieces of a jigsaw, are successfully placed dependant on how previous pieces fitted. Only by the accumulation of many individual components do we reveal the underlying picture.
The natural problems faced by mankind in the 21st century require our combined scientific might to tackle. In 2009, swine flu spread globally in days affecting millions and leading to more than 20,000 deaths. The consequence of an H5N1 bird flu pandemic could be much worse. We strive for a better drug or vaccine, and an informed strategy. Recent research with these very goals raised alarm that shared information about how bird flu could mutate might be misused by those seeking to do harm. Concerned parties called for censorship. But scientists have for years exchanged knowledge about deadly pathogens, such as Ebola virus or lethal strains of E. coli bacteria, without sparking their use for bio-terrorism.
Advertisement
Censorship of scientific information would breed public distrust and discourage fresh minds from engaging in difficult research areas, and drive scientific discourse below a critical threshold. Difficult decisions about who should be afforded access to censored material would inevitably stifle scientists working in countries where problems such as the spread of infectious disease are major issues but funding and influence is low.
Scientific progress is unpredictable. Of seven billion minds on this earth, who will invent a cure for cancer, or work out how to tackle pandemic flu or the energy crisis? It is at our peril that we ordain to know in advance the source of the next game-changing discovery that will add a crucial piece to the jigsaw.