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=3&hp 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=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=14993 or send a blank email to leave-14993-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
