Secrets = Security

Taken from: www.oxbridgebiotech.com 

In the article "Censoring Science Won't Make Us Any Safer," writer Laura K. Donohue argues that information from scientific discoveries should be available to all [Argument! 396-98].  She goes through various scenarios of how science can harm others, such as if the open knowledge of making certain weapons was available to everyone, yet she concludes that secrecy is not the answer [390].  While I understand that her motivations are well-meant, as they include openness in the scientific community to promote further discoveries, I believe that her conclusion is incorrect.  Scientific discoveries, at least initially, need to be kept out of the public eye for reasons of misuse, unintentional panic, and ethical concerns.

Taken from: phys.org 

First, giving the public access to scientific research puts all in danger as there are criminals and terrorists who would want to use this information for evil.  Even Donohue mentions this, and she reports that terrorists could easily poison large amounts of manufactured cow's milk with botulinum toxin, or make a homemade bomb, by reading the materials presented in many published scientific journals [397].  These facts alone should make scientific news and discoveries more classified to the public, and only available to scientists, so the public good is not compromised.

Taken from: en.wikipedia.org

Then, Laura K. Donohue fails to recognize the impact of the broad scientific media on the public, and the sordid history the two holds.  For instance, when the "War of the Worlds," a science-fiction novel by H.G. Wells, was broadcast over the radio in 1938, a nation-wide panic followed [Lovgen].  If modern science is misinterpreted, and then quickly spread via communications such as Twitter, Facebook, texts and phone calls, the same situation of panic and chaos will reoccur, which will not be good.  The masses are as vulnerable to panics and hysteria as the people in the late 1930's, so by concealing some potential anxiety-causing scientific data, a national panic can be prevented. 

Taken from: www.tikkun.org

The last and most controversial of reasons involves the mixture of science and moral policy.  The public should not be allowed access to all scientific information without it being censored for unethical ramifications, and so each discovery must be reviewed and revealed accordingly in light of moral reasoning.  A major example of this would be a discovery related to making torture even more efficient--should the scientists who made this discovery proclaim it to the world and to people who would take advantage of this information?  Or, what about a discovery regarding pedophilia and its perverted methods; would it be morally right to allow all  to see and know this as well?  In situations such as these, I would hope that science would be censored and that the researchers would use good discernment to prevent such knowledge from falling on the wrong ears.

Taken from: www.ipkitten.blogspot.com

Thus, science must be censored for the safety of all as a limitless access to it could promote nationwide panics, terrorism and other crimes.  While still allowing other scientists to work with the discovered data (in light of furthering research), some parts of science should be concealed as they interfere with moral issues, mental wellness and physical well-being.  Then, and only then, can the citizens of the United States of America be safeguarded from science-related attacks in every area of life.  Then, and only then, can Americans experience true freedom. 

Works Cited:

Donohue, Laura K. ""Trouble Ahead for Science"" Argument! 10th ed. N.p.: McGraw-Hill, 2011. 396-98. Print.

Lovgen, Stefan. ""War of the Worlds": Behind the 1938 Radio Show Panic." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 17 June 2005. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.