Arthur Caplan authored an opinion piece for CNN which advocated censorship in Science. While there is a strong backlash against the arguments he advocated and, disappointingly, strong support for, all three sides, the author, advocates and opponents, misses established ethical practices that already addresses concerns about potential harm from research. While I will acknowledge Arthur Caplan's fears about a terrorist in a well funded lab, or perhaps Iran, creating a flu virus that can result in a
wildfire if released, I must point out to Caplan his reaction to his fears infringes on rights of individuals to both collect and develop knowledge, share and collaborate work as a form of free speech and stifles scientific progress by giving the keys to knowledge to a single authority, preventing scientists from advancing others' work.
Established ethical practices also prevent the release of truly damaging information by either self censorship or refusal to develop the knowledge. These practices are taught in universities and are by themselves subjects with project, research papers and majors for degrees. Aspiring scientists are taught the norms of ethical practice that range from the ethics of plagiarisation to the harm of weapons research. This is the only effective safe guard against the fears Arthur Caplan has expressed; scientists who disagree with the government will always continue their theoretical work which has the same potential harm as a scientist at the CDC with a grudge against the powers that be. Embracing them into the fold of good ethics works.
This study of ethics is a doubled edge sword for any government that wants to develop weapons; many scientists who worked on the first nuclear bomb would never have joined the project if they had known for ethical reasons. However, these same ethics also prevent the scientific establishment from cooperating with terrorists or rouge states. However, handing the keys over to the government wouldn't dull the edge Arthur Caplan intends. When the government is in control of access to knowledge, the government can also require scientists prove their loyalty or harmlessness, which can include working on government projects involving bio-weapons, chemical weapons or nuclear weapons. Michio Kaku's pinnacle, where humanity, my generation, will know if we survive the transition from a type zero civilization to a type one, categorizes these as serious threats to our transition. If the government were to censor science by means of security clearance, the very fears Caplan has would come much closer to reality.
Therefor Arthur Caplan, I must urge you to reconsider your opinion, renounce it and support the individual scientist's and journal's autonomy in ethical decisions.
