Journal Editors and Scientists Call for More Caution in Publishing Potentially Dangerous Research By LILA GUTERMAN
Denver
Thirty-two journal editors and biologists released a statement on Saturday that calls for greater caution in reviewing and publishing scientific results that could be misused or dangerous. The group released its statement at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science here.
The question of when and how to publish scholarly information that could be mined by terrorists or others seeking to do harm has intensified since the September 11 attacks and the anthrax attacks that followed. Some government officials have threatened to impose restrictions, and scientists and publishers have discussed crafting their own approaches, in part to ward off such intervention. The statement released on Saturday is one such effort.
The statement, which will be published this week in Science, Nature, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, says that some information is unethical to publish, but it does not define what experiments or facts would fall into that category.
"This is a truly gray area," said Ronald M. Atlas, who presented the statement at the conference. Mr. Atlas is president of the American Society for Microbiology and a professor of biology and dean of the graduate school at the University of Louisville.
Any procedures or definitions developed by journals must take into account "that open publication brings benefits not only to public health but also in efforts to combat terrorism," the scientists and editors wrote, since such papers can point to counterterror strategies or ways to treat and prevent the effects of biological weapons. Published experiments must be reproducible, Mr. Atlas said. "Methods sections [of papers] are going to remain."
"We're not proposing something radical," added Mr. Atlas. Instead, the editors and researchers are calling on journal editors to consider how publishing can affect security, and to begin educating scientists about the potential societal impacts of their work.
When editors conclude that papers may result in greater harm than benefit to society, the reports of such studies should be modified or not published, the statement says.
The microbiology society has already modified two papers that caused concern during review, Mr. Atlas said. In one, editors reworded introductory statements that had called attention to the dangers posed by the topic of the paper. In the other, they deleted a section that had contained what Mr. Atlas called "cookbook detail," giving instructions on how to make a hazardous agent more dangerous.
Some journals, including those published by the microbiology society, have already established procedures for finding problematic papers, and those procedures could serve as models for journals just beginning to grapple with security issues. The microbiology society's 11 journals ask peer reviewers to alert editors to possibly dangerous papers, and urge editors to contact the society's publications board if they need further guidance.
Some journals, such as Science and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, have recruited security experts with whom they can consult, if necessary.
John D. Steinbruner, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland at College Park, called the editors and scientists' statement "a very, very important development," adding that it is "the first step in trying to exercise prudential judgment." To ensure that publication does not endanger security, he said, a review process that looks at social implications of scientific work is necessary. "That process does not yet exist," he said.
John H. Marburger III, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, expressed support for the editors' efforts. In a prepared statement, he said, "This step provides assurance that the publishers are alert to the possibility that terrorists might exploit research results, and are prepared to take action."