Protecting the public or suppressing scientific inquiry? Poll results

A recent review of research on the H1N1 virus raised a long-standing issue of openess in science vs.public harm when the NSABB recommended that the detailed methods in two manuscipts not be included in the publications.  We asked OEC visitors their view on the matter, and this is what people had to say.  (Read the press release for more information.)

  

Comments:

Can we have better policy and public deliberations about research choices about virus modification for purposes of controlling pandemics?

Although it is appropriate for a fixed perioed of time, caution should be used so as no to create a new class of 'elite' researchers who can manipulate such status for unfair advantage in the research enterprise. Broad clearance should be given to many scientists who wish to seek the data.

Publishing may possibly threaten public safety, but it almost certainly will help it. Publishing more is the better response.

I agree that it will get out but the delay may give us time to consider the implications. Nuclear weapons seems to be a ongoing case to consider.

The right to know should apply to everyone and sometimes limiting information causes more harm than good.