Re:[tips] What If The Government Were To Censor Scientific Research Reports?
Mike Palij writes: In my original post to TiPS, I wrote: |two papers that were submitted to the journal Science that |the U.S. government wants censored, that is, details removed |which would prevent others from duplicating the work; Now, anyone involved in experimental or other types of research would realize that if you do not have enough information to replicate someone's research, one cannot know if the results are real (i.e., replicable) or not… Not being able to replicate a researcher's work because key information is omitted should be of concern to all scientists. In the case in question, if the journals acceded to the reasonable biosecurity concerns expressed, and not just by US health officials, there is nothing to stop accredited scientists in appropriate laboratories requesting relevant information from the Netherlands scientists, who could accede to the request, or otherwise, dependent on the status of the requesting scientists and subject to appropriate security assurances. I'm sure that won't satisfy Mike, but I'm out of here. :-) Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org - From: Michael Palij m...@nyu.edu Subject:Re:What If The Government Were To Censor Scientific Research Reports? Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 09:40:03 -0500 In my original post to TiPS, I wrote: |two papers that were submitted to the journal Science that |the U.S. government wants censored, that is, details removed |which would prevent others from duplicating the work; Now, anyone involved in experimental or other types of research would realize that if you do not have enough information to replicate someone's research, one cannot know if the results are real (i.e., replicable) or not. Historically, omission of such details has led to an inability to replicate important findings (e.g., Leo DiCara's work) or to show that published results are in error (I believe a couple of papers in Psychological Science were retracted because it was discovered that there were programming errors that produced the observed results). Not being able to replicate a researcher's work because key information is omitted should be of concern to all scientists. I also said in that post: |Now, I can appreciate the government's concerns in the |case of manufacturing bird flu and making sure that only |the right scientists have access to the details for |reproducing the virus So, above I state I understand why the government would want to prevent details from becoming public as well as making sure that only the right researchers got the details. Subsequent to my posts, the authors have agreed to keep certain details out of the published papers and to develop some mechanism that vets who gets of the details though, since this apparently has not been done before, it is unclear what the process should be. I think that a reasonable person will see how such a process can be done badly (e.g., the restricted early access to the Dead Sea Scrolls led to early interpretations that reflected certain biases; it was not until copies of the scrolls became easily available that alternate interpretations were possible). I ended my post with the following point: |but one has to wonder if politicians |might want to apply similar tactics to social/behavioral/psychological |research and not just to methodological details but including |certain results and conclusions that may clash with certain |beliefs. The point being is that ideology and religion can trump scientific concerns if the people in charge have sufficient power to impose their will and researchers and other people are to frightened to do anything about it. Onc recent example is provided by the NY Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/12/07/health/AP-US-MED-Morning-After-Pill.html?_r=3hp Another source is clearer in discussing the issues: http://gizmodo.com/5866053/denying-girls-access-to-morning+after-pill-puts-politics-ahead-of-science After everything I've said above, I admit to not understanding what Allen's point is in his earlier posts or his current post (below). -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:16:18 -0800, Allen Esterson wrote: According to the Independent, a group of special scientific advisors to the US Government decided that the details of the two studies into H5N1 bird flu were too sensitive to be published in full and recommended redactions to the manuscripts rather than a complete ban on publication. The US NIH expressed their concerns thus: While the public health benefits of such research can be important, certain information obtained through such studies has the potential to be misused for harmful purposes, the statement says. These manuscripts... concluded that the H5N1 virus has greater potential than previously believed to gain a dangerous capacity to be transmitted among mammals, including
Re:[tips] What If The Government Were To Censor Scientific Research Reports?
According to the Independent, a group of special scientific advisors to the US Government decided that the details of the two studies into H5N1 bird flu were too sensitive to be published in full and recommended redactions to the manuscripts rather than a complete ban on publication. The US NIH expressed their concerns thus: While the public health benefits of such research can be important, certain information obtained through such studies has the potential to be misused for harmful purposes, the statement says. These manuscripts... concluded that the H5N1 virus has greater potential than previously believed to gain a dangerous capacity to be transmitted among mammals, including perhaps humans. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/us-tells-scientists-to-censor-flu-research-6279888.html In other words, the NIH reported that the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which advises the US Government, recommended that the scientists and the two journals should omit key details of experiments. It does not want the publication of all the scientific methods used in the experiments, nor the genetic sequences of the mutated H5N1 virus, in order to prevent replication of the research 'by those who would seek to do harm'. So the NIH, along with others such as an EU spokesperson, is expressing reasonable concerns and requesting reasonable measures. They have no jurisdiction over the journal Nature, to which the relevant paper has been submitted. To make something potentially sinister out of this situation seems to me to be somewhat over the top. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- Attached Message From: Michael Palij m...@nyu.edu Subject:Re:What If The Government Were To Censor Scientific Research Reports? Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:07:10 -0500 On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:31:01 -0800, Allen Esterson wrote: In the context of the claimed discovery that a mutant and highly dangerous strain of avian flu reportedly fatal in 60 per cent of human cases has been developed by a relatively simple method in a Netherlands science laboratory, Mike Palij asks: How should scientists react to having the U.S. government or any government censor (redact) published scientific reports? I note that you did not actually deal with my question. In the interests of free speech, I might similarly ask how should democrats react to any curtailing of the freedom of an individual to shout fire in a crowded theatre. Allen did not provide a citation for the fire quote so I don't know whether he is aware of its original context or its original wording. Wikipedia has a brief entry (yadda-yadda) on this saying which was originally made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater Quoting from the entry: |Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation |of the Espionage Act of 1917, (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), |to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes |argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it |presented a clear and present danger to the government's recruitment |efforts for the war. Holmes wrote: | |The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect |a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. Note that the original wording is falsely shouting fire -- truthfully shouting that there is a fire is another thing. It should also be noted that the entry states that Holmes later changed his opinion on whether distributing flyers posed a clear and present danger to the government. I also don't see what connection Allen's comment has to my original question. It is, of course, not only US health authorities who are concerned: EU Commissioner John Dalli told journalists he had received assurances from Dutch authorities that the virus was secure… 'One of the issues ... is to ensure that any information coming from this research is well controlled and without sensitive details about mutation being given,' he said. http://www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20111213-316022.html Again, I fail to see Allen's point. The U.S. has a long history of funding secret research that has not been open to peer review or public scrutiny: see the Wikipedia entry (yadda-yadda) on the Strategic Defense Initiative or better known as the Star Wars defense system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative This is the kind of waste of money and effort one gets when one engages in secret research for the government (and don't get me started on Cold War efforts on using extrasensory perception against the Russian as reported in the book The Men Who Stare at Goats). Finally, given the level of sophistication and technical capability to produce bioweapons, does anyone
Re:[tips] What If The Government Were To Censor Scientific Research Reports?
In my original post to TiPS, I wrote: |two papers that were submitted to the journal Science that |the U.S. government wants censored, that is, details removed |which would prevent others from duplicating the work; Now, anyone involved in experimental or other types of research would realize that if you do not have enough information to replicate someone's research, one cannot know if the results are real (i.e., replicable) or not. Historically, omission of such details has led to an inability to replicate important findings (e.g., Leo DiCara's work) or to show that published results are in error (I believe a couple of papers in Psychological Science were retracted because it was discovered that there were programming errors that produced the observed results). Not being able to replicate a researcher's work because key information is omitted should be of concern to all scientists. I also said in that post: |Now, I can appreciate the government's concerns in the |case of manufacturing bird flu and making sure that only |the right scientists have access to the details for |reproducing the virus So, above I state I understand why the government would want to prevent details from becoming public as well as making sure that only the right researchers got the details. Subsequent to my posts, the authors have agreed to keep certain details out of the published papers and to develop some mechanism that vets who gets of the details though, since this apparently has not been done before, it is unclear what the process should be. I think that a reasonable person will see how such a process can be done badly (e.g., the restricted early access to the Dead Sea Scrolls led to early interpretations that reflected certain biases; it was not until copies of the scrolls became easily available that alternate interpretations were possible). I ended my post with the following point: |but one has to wonder if politicians |might want to apply similar tactics to social/behavioral/psychological |research and not just to methodological details but including |certain results and conclusions that may clash with certain |beliefs. The point being is that ideology and religion can trump scientific concerns if the people in charge have sufficient power to impose their will and researchers and other people are to frightened to do anything about it. Onc recent example is provided by the NY Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/12/07/health/AP-US-MED-Morning-After-Pill.html?_r=3hp Another source is clearer in discussing the issues: http://gizmodo.com/5866053/denying-girls-access-to-morning+after-pill-puts-politics-ahead-of-science After everything I've said above, I admit to not understanding what Allen's point is in his earlier posts or his current post (below). -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 01:16:18 -0800, Allen Esterson wrote: According to the Independent, a group of special scientific advisors to the US Government decided that the details of the two studies into H5N1 bird flu were too sensitive to be published in full and recommended redactions to the manuscripts rather than a complete ban on publication. The US NIH expressed their concerns thus: While the public health benefits of such research can be important, certain information obtained through such studies has the potential to be misused for harmful purposes, the statement says. These manuscripts... concluded that the H5N1 virus has greater potential than previously believed to gain a dangerous capacity to be transmitted among mammals, including perhaps humans. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/us-tells-scientists-to-censor-flu-research-6279888.html In other words, the NIH reported that the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which advises the US Government, recommended that the scientists and the two journals should omit key details of experiments. It does not want the publication of all the scientific methods used in the experiments, nor the genetic sequences of the mutated H5N1 virus, in order to prevent replication of the research 'by those who would seek to do harm'. So the NIH, along with others such as an EU spokesperson, is expressing reasonable concerns and requesting reasonable measures. They have no jurisdiction over the journal Nature, to which the relevant paper has been submitted. To make something potentially sinister out of this situation seems to me to be somewhat over the top. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=14993 or send a blank email to leave-14993-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] What If The Government Were To Censor Scientific Research Reports?
In the context of the claimed discovery that a mutant and highly dangerous strain of avian flu reportedly fatal in 60 per cent of human cases has been developed by a relatively simple method in a Netherlands science laboratory, Mike Palij asks: How should scientists react to having the U.S. government or any government censor (redact) published scientific reports? In the interests of free speech, I might similarly ask how should democrats react to any curtailing of the freedom of an individual to shout fire in a crowded theatre. It is, of course, not only US health authorities who are concerned: EU Commissioner John Dalli told journalists he had received assurances from Dutch authorities that the virus was secure… 'One of the issues ... is to ensure that any information coming from this research is well controlled and without sensitive details about mutation being given,' he said. http://www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20111213-316022.html Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org - From: Michael Palij m...@nyu.edu Subject:What If The Government Were To Censor Scientific Research Reports? Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:27:06 -0500 How should scientists react to having the U.S. government or any government censor (redact) published scientific reports? Well, start thinking about it because there are two papers that were submitted to the journal Science that the U.S. government wants censored, that is, details removed which would prevent others from duplicating the work; for one media account, see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-birdflu-usa-censorship-idUSTRE7BJ1O720111220 Now, I can appreciate the government's concerns in the case of manufacturing bird flu and making sure that only the right scientists have access to the details for reproducing the virus but one has to wonder if politicians might want to apply similar tactics to social/behavioral/psychological research and not just to methodological details but including certain results and conclusions that may clash with certain beliefs. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=14979 or send a blank email to leave-14979-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re:[tips] What If The Government Were To Censor Scientific Research Reports?
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 01:31:01 -0800, Allen Esterson wrote: In the context of the claimed discovery that a mutant and highly dangerous strain of avian flu reportedly fatal in 60 per cent of human cases has been developed by a relatively simple method in a Netherlands science laboratory, Mike Palij asks: How should scientists react to having the U.S. government or any government censor (redact) published scientific reports? I note that you did not actually deal with my question. In the interests of free speech, I might similarly ask how should democrats react to any curtailing of the freedom of an individual to shout fire in a crowded theatre. Allen did not provide a citation for the fire quote so I don't know whether he is aware of its original context or its original wording. Wikipedia has a brief entry (yadda-yadda) on this saying which was originally made by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater Quoting from the entry: |Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation |of the Espionage Act of 1917, (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), |to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes |argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it |presented a clear and present danger to the government's recruitment |efforts for the war. Holmes wrote: | |The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect |a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. Note that the original wording is falsely shouting fire -- truthfully shouting that there is a fire is another thing. It should also be noted that the entry states that Holmes later changed his opinion on whether distributing flyers posed a clear and present danger to the government. I also don't see what connection Allen's comment has to my original question. It is, of course, not only US health authorities who are concerned: EU Commissioner John Dalli told journalists he had received assurances from Dutch authorities that the virus was secure… 'One of the issues ... is to ensure that any information coming from this research is well controlled and without sensitive details about mutation being given,' he said. http://www.asiaone.com/Health/News/Story/A1Story20111213-316022.html Again, I fail to see Allen's point. The U.S. has a long history of funding secret research that has not been open to peer review or public scrutiny: see the Wikipedia entry (yadda-yadda) on the Strategic Defense Initiative or better known as the Star Wars defense system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative This is the kind of waste of money and effort one gets when one engages in secret research for the government (and don't get me started on Cold War efforts on using extrasensory perception against the Russian as reported in the book The Men Who Stare at Goats). Finally, given the level of sophistication and technical capability to produce bioweapons, does anyone really think that the enemy, however defined, doesn't have access to similar resources (e.g., how did Pakistan get nuclear weapons)? Of course, anyone with enough money and the right connections can buy almost anything in the world or the materials to build anything. How would censoring scientific journals prevent that? -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu - From: Michael Palij m...@nyu.edu Subject:What If The Government Were To Censor Scientific Research Reports? Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:27:06 -0500 How should scientists react to having the U.S. government or any government censor (redact) published scientific reports? Well, start thinking about it because there are two papers that were submitted to the journal Science that the U.S. government wants censored, that is, details removed which would prevent others from duplicating the work; for one media account, see: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-birdflu-usa-censorship-idUSTRE7BJ1O720111220 Now, I can appreciate the government's concerns in the case of manufacturing bird flu and making sure that only the right scientists have access to the details for reproducing the virus but one has to wonder if politicians might want to apply similar tactics to social/behavioral/psychological research and not just to methodological details but including certain results and conclusions that may clash with certain --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=14982 or send a blank email to leave-14982-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
