To Censor Science or Not to Censor Science :: Analysis, Donohue

The Censoring of science may seem like it is restricting scientist’s ability to share their knowledge with one another, but censorship is protecting the United States citizens. In the article, â€Å"Censoring Science Won’t Make Us Any Safer† the author Donohue (2011) said, â€Å"Citizens are entitled to know when their milk, their water, their bridges their hospitals lack security precautions† (p. 398). The author believed that United States citizens have a right to know when they are in danger. To refute this argument, would be to say that, if the government does not have some sort of regulation set up to inhibit the sharing of biological secrets, our nations security will still be at risk. Donahue believed that censoring science has put the United States at the same risk as not censoring. Donahue (2011) stated â€Å"the effort to suppress scientific information reflects a dangerously outdated attitude† (p. 396). Donahue supported this claim by explaining several cases in science where sharing information from microbiological studies have helped science move forward. One such study was done by scientists in Australia. The study was finding a disease that would kill rodents. The scientists found a disease similar to smallpox that was called mousepox. With the research that they discovered and published the researchers from St. Louis University found a defense against such a disease. Donahue (2011) declared â€Å"This result would undoubtedly not have been achieved, or at least not as quickly, without the attention drawn by the ASM article† (p. 397). Most scientists want to be able to share their data. Scientists are autonomous by nature. Begelman (1968) refuted an argument made by I. L. Horowitz, who was a scientist that believed that the government was in â€Å"gross violations of the autonomous nature of science† (p.70). Begelman believed conversely, that there is a system of checks and balances in the government regulation system, and that this system is in place to protect citizens. The autonomous nature of science is not being dispelled just because there are a few government regulations on publishing scientific information. National security should always be considered when publishing information that could potentially be used against the United States. Scientists need to be aware of this potential threat and practice self-censorship. In the journal, â€Å"A Tale of Two Studies†, Segelid (2007) said â€Å"We recognize that on occasion an editor may conclude that the potential harm of publication outweighs the potential societal benefits.