He takes as his starting point the Manhattan Project, which he says many scientists regretted getting involved in. Using "gain of function" research he explains that "In this sense, one must assume honesty as a core virtue even if we conclude that there are instances where the possibility of severe public harm requires secrecy, in that it was involved in discovering the danger in the first place. What is really going on in such cases is that scientific honesty is taken for granted but must be weighed against other more general social interests that come into play and ought also be taken into account."
"Sometimes doing the right thing may mean not being completely honest in a larger social setting in order to prevent a great harm."
That kind of rule has unlimited scope. History is full of "great harm" like "lese majeste" or somebody's revenue stream drying up, and exact parallels appear in the USA today.
If you find a way to make a nuke from a ham radio and a can of pork and beans, yes, I much prefer that we not publish that information. But let's define the risk and balancing more carefully, and not hand out blank checks to the powers-that-be.
And yes, I would have published a thing or two in his suggested American Journal of Discarded Hypotheses
.
No comments:
Post a Comment