Sir -- I strongly disagree with the tone of your editorial entitled "Ill-advised 'freedom' of scientific information", and with its conclusions (Nature 397,455; 1999).
First, the new legislation is not a "ruse". It is a public law of the United States. Neither was the legislation inserted secretively or in an underhand manner. The authors publicly announced the measure. Second, the federal Freedom of Information Act exempts from the proposed rule files (data) that would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Third, data obtained under that act would not be sequestered. It may be reinterpreted. However it is difficult to see how reinterpretation could be considered disruptive. Reinterpretation of data is an integral part of the scientific process. Surely you are not saying that once a conclusion concerning a data set is reached by an author, that conclusion is inviolate! Were that the case the number of pages in Nature would be significantly reduced. I also question the use of the word "inquisition". One gets the impression that "well-financed special interest groups" conduct inquisitions, whereas academic colleagues conduct research.
Fourth, I do not understand how dissemination of scientific information can stifle freedom. On the contrary, it is only through unhindered dissemination that freedom of expression and debate can flourish.
I suggest that we have here not a concern about academic freedom. Rather it is a concern among some that their special status as high priests of 'science' would be subject to review by the non-anointed, with the possibility that an alternate, perhaps superior, conclusion could be reached. It is also a matter of ownership of intellectual property -- that is, greed.
George Lauer
Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada, 755 E. Flamingo Road, Las Vegas, Nevada 89132-0040, USA
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.