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

The Censoring of apprehension may seem like it is restricting scientists ability to serving their knowledge with one a nonher, but censorship is protecting the United States citizens. In the article, Censoring Science Wont Make Us whatsoever Safer the author Donohue (2011) said, Citizens be entitled to know when their milk, their water, their bridges their hospitals lack credential precautions (p. 398). The author believed that United States citizens keep up a right to know when they are in danger. To refute this argument, would be to say that, if the political sympathies does not have some sort of regulation set up to inhibit the overlap of biological secrets, our nations security will still be at risk.Donahue believed that censoring light has put the United States at the same risk as not censoring. Donahue (2011) stated the effort to suppress scientific information reflects a dangerously outdated attitude (p. 396). Donahue supported this claim by explaining several(prenom inal) cases in science where sharing information from microbiological studies have helped science act forward. One such pick up was done by scientists in Australia. The study was finding a malady 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 This result would undoubtedly not have been achieved, or at least not as quickly, without the wariness drawn by the ASM article (p. 397). Most scientists want to be equal 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 gross violations of the autonomous nature of science (p.70). Begelman believed conversely, that there is a agreement of checks and balances in the government regulation system, and th at 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 subscribe to to be aware of this potential threat and practice self-censorship. In the journal, A Tale of Two Studies, Segelid (2007) said We recognize that on occasion an editor program may conclude that the potential harm of publication outweighs the potential social benefits.