Balancing communication and safety.

Democratic societies are now engaged against terrorist activities. In such an environment, there is tension between the desire to withhold scientific information from those who would use it for ill and the need to not stifle fundamental research in the life sciences or the open communication of results. To inhibit the pursuit of science may suggest safety from those prepared to use science for harmful purposes, but any sense of security is false. Freedom for research and communication is more necessary than ever, and the best defense against those who would employ science as a weapon is scientific excellence. There will inevitably be worldwide communication of the results of scientific studies, but open communication is vital to peer review and an independent evaluation of research, including oversight by the executive and legislative branches of government as well as the public. Open communication is also essential for public-health and public-safety planning, for the robust growth of business and technology, and for research that will be beneficial for society. Such openness is additionally necessary for the development of countermeasures against sinister applications of science. Preventing publication, even if that could be accomplished, will not prevent the misuse of science because sanctions will not deter those who have a malevolent intent. Secrecy instead poses the danger of enforced ignorance. The life-sciences community has generally garnered public trust. To ensure the continued success of the scientific enterprise, it is critical to maintain and further that trust against the possibility of public misunderstanding, particularly in an ever-changing scientific and political environment. To preserve their credibility, members of the scientific community must remain sensitive to the potential that information could be misused by individuals and communities to endanger public safety and health or otherwise jeopardize national security; continuing education and responsible engagement in the wider body politic are required. Life scientists enjoy a virtually unrestricted exchange of information; shared information has been a safeguard and a cornerstone. But legitimate threats to our national security necessitate that there be appropriate oversight of scientific research and publication. Restraints of the kind set forth by President Reagan in National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 ([1][1]) are fit. However, perfect regulation is impossible because it assumes perfect compliance. While the scientific community continues to accept responsibility for principled research and communication, and regulation as a management tool, the public and the government must recognize that true national security requires scientific accomplishment and that scientific excellence requires the open communication of research and results. 1. 1.[↵][2]Available at [www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-189.htm][3]. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1. in text" [3]: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-189.htm