It is undeniable that this new knowledge [in biology] and these advancing technologies hold enormous potential to improve public health and agriculture, strengthen national economies, and closee the development gap between resource-rich and resource-poor countries. However, as with all scientific revolutions, there is a potential dark side, to the advancing power and global spread of these and other technologieis. For millenia, every major new technology has been used for hostile purposes....
In its most recent unclassified report on the future global landscale, the National Intelligence Council predicted that a major terrorist attack employing biological agents will likely occur by 2020....Official U.S. statements continue to cite around a dozen countries that are believed to have or to be pursuing a biological weapons capability....
[Recommendations] 1. The [Committee on Advances in Technology and the Prevention of Their Application to Next Generation Biowarfare Threats] endorses and affirms policies and practices that, to the maximum extent possible, promote the free and open exchange of information in the life sciences. 1a. Ensure that...the results of fundamental research remain unrestricted except in cases where national security requires classification...[and] 1b. Ensure that any biosecurity policies or regulations implemented are scientifically sound and are likely to reduce risks without unduly hindering progress in the biological sciences and associated technologies....
[R]estrictive regulations...are not likely to reduce the risks that advances in the life sciences will be utilized with malevolent intent in the future. In fact, they will make it more difficult for civil society to protect itself against such threats....Such regulations...would also limit the tremendous potential for continuing advances in the life sciences and related technologies to improve health, provide secure sources of food and energy, contribute to economic development..., and enhance overall the quality of human life.
Comment. This is not the first time the National Research Council has looked closely at the threats from bioterrorism and concluded that "the free and open exchange of information in the life sciences" is worth preserving. Open science not only has overriding peacetime benefits but also enables us to develop countermeasures to protect ourselves against bioterror. For the NRC's previous analysis of the tension between the benefits of open science and the risks of terrorism, see Seeking Security: Pathogens, Open Access, and Genome Databases (September 8, 2004) and my thoughts on it, Reflections on 9/11, four years later (September 2, 2005).
Posted by
Peter Suber at 5/24/2006 01:34:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
