tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447544468792389936.post202965218780189688..comments2024-02-26T21:18:23.165-08:00Comments on CHIMERAS: Avian influenza, ferrets, and bioterrorism: fear versus scienceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09922888671399516573noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447544468792389936.post-66141363779197056372013-03-01T15:39:51.307-08:002013-03-01T15:39:51.307-08:00Thanks for your comments, Frazer, and for reading,...Thanks for your comments, Frazer, and for reading, I appreciate it. I think it can go either way. At this point, the news was out but the details were missing if left unpublished. Sometimes half of the information can lead to misinformation as well. But I do understand your concerns. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09922888671399516573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447544468792389936.post-77324698949031667572013-03-01T15:00:00.662-08:002013-03-01T15:00:00.662-08:00As a lateral thinker I tend to look at things from...As a lateral thinker I tend to look at things from differing angles. I've read your blog with much interest not having a scientic background such as yours. Some years ago an article by a retired specialist (US Army) was sent me regarding chemical and bio weapons. He said mis-information did more harm than the weapons themselves. <br /><br />Also it was nigh on impossible for aerosols to work given the number of variables which had to be overcome. Temperature, humidity, wind direction, time of dsy, to name a few. On top of that very few if any had the speciallist knowledge he had gained over a lifetime in the army.<br /><br />From my standpoint the reason for not publishing could well be just what the retired specialist pointed to. Mis-information. Holding back info is as bad as, if not worse than, no information. The reason I don't read journals like Science and Nature is given by a previous poster. Hard facts not glamour.<br /><br />Great blog btw.The Hunterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01063945874060518574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447544468792389936.post-81727766428908179732012-04-02T07:25:05.569-07:002012-04-02T07:25:05.569-07:00Thanks!!Thanks!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09922888671399516573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447544468792389936.post-57487648750338515922012-04-02T03:53:46.913-07:002012-04-02T03:53:46.913-07:00Great blog, informative and up to date. Bookmarkin...Great blog, informative and up to date. Bookmarking your page. Thanks and more power!Beaverton Vet Hospitalhttp://www.murrayhillvethospital.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447544468792389936.post-25856486412841712832012-02-18T07:12:36.679-08:002012-02-18T07:12:36.679-08:00EXACTLY!!! Okay, you're right, it's probab...EXACTLY!!! Okay, you're right, it's probably not accurate to call it censorship, but whatever it is, you're absolutely right: the work is done, it's out there, people have been talking about it. I don't know in this case, again, because being a theoretician, my mode of work is slightly different, but we present our results in conferences all the time and way before we have published the work. I imagine it's the same here. So the results are out there, what is the point of NOT publishing them now? <br /><br />Thanks so much, K.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09922888671399516573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447544468792389936.post-4008143702348244942012-02-17T20:51:34.548-08:002012-02-17T20:51:34.548-08:00I agree that the PNAS paper has a point but the qu...I agree that the PNAS paper has a point but the question is whether not publishing the paper is going to genuinely prevent the research from being accessible to industrious scientists who want to look into it. Just because I can't access the paper via my University library doesn't mean that I can't email the authors to request their draft. Nor does it stop them from looking into my publication record to see if I have or work for a lab involved in viral replication/evolution/vaccine development who might have a valid reason for wanting to reproduce the data or build on it. <br /><br />I think if the work is solid and important (and what scientist doesn't think their work is important) that they will make it available to interested parties and perhaps form collaborations. I think the scientific community is underrating our capacity to generate peer review outside of the strictures of a journal format or overestimating the role of journals in policing our field. <br /><br />The problem lies in the fact that laypeople still look to glamour journals like Science and Nature to tell them what's important to science whether they understand the content or not (I certainly don't get all of it). This makes the content of a journal available to anyone who is willing to pay the fee. If I'm a terrorist the $30 article fee on a website is a non-existent barrier but if I have to explain to a real person that I have no lab or history in science but would like access to this potentially harmful information I might be slightly more discouraged. <br /><br />This is ignoring the topic of publicly funded research failing to be accessible to the taxpayer but hell the DOD has been doing that forever. <br /><br />I'm not saying that this is the right call, but I hesitate to call it flat out censorship since the fact that the data exists has been let out of the bag so to speak.antisocialbutterflienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447544468792389936.post-27084151356927776022012-02-17T17:22:05.240-08:002012-02-17T17:22:05.240-08:00I'm glad you came by to comment because knowin...I'm glad you came by to comment because knowing you are an experimentalist I was wondering how you felt about all this. I'm not sure either, but I do agree with the PNAS paper.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09922888671399516573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447544468792389936.post-21763914021528790062012-02-17T17:19:55.156-08:002012-02-17T17:19:55.156-08:00My thoughts exactly.My thoughts exactly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09922888671399516573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447544468792389936.post-79061780951437884982012-02-17T15:54:17.485-08:002012-02-17T15:54:17.485-08:00I can see both sides of this issue. It seems like ...I can see both sides of this issue. It seems like now that people know that the research exists the labs could make the data available to scientists with legitimate interests in the work. Though I suppose the question is then who decides what is "legitimate?"<br /><br />It seems to me that there is a difference between censorship and general dissemination of potentially dangerous information. I don't think there's a right answer here but it's definitely food for thought.antisocialbutterflienoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447544468792389936.post-10301995282784657372012-02-17T13:48:36.829-08:002012-02-17T13:48:36.829-08:00Forewarned is forearmed. Knowledge censorship is p...Forewarned is forearmed. Knowledge censorship is pretty much never a good idea.Steve Halterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03160423930602205230noreply@blogger.com