Forbidden Knowledge? - Brainstorm - The Chronicle of Higher Education

A piece in The New York Times raises a dilemma about which I have been thinking much recently. Is some knowledge too dangerous to be released? Is some knowledge so dangerous that people (usually scientists) should not even be allowed to pursue it?

We philosophers are pretty good at thinking up examples that muddy the waters. Suppose you have a friend who is suicidal and he asks you if you have twenty bucks he could borrow and do you know the address of the nearest store where he could buy a large bottle of acetaminophen? I take it that knowledge in this case would not be a good thing—even though Kant would jump all over you if you told a lie (Plato would be on your side)—but what about generally?

It turns out that a couple of research groups have discovered how to make the lethal H5N1 bird flu virus. Naturally, pleased with their work, they wanted to publish in prominent places. They have now done so, one paper in Nature and the other in Science. The publications were delayed, however, when—on the grounds that criminal or other badly disposed groups might use the information for evil ends—the National Science Advisory Board for Bioscience Security asked that details be suppressed. Later, the World Health Organization ruled otherwise and so the papers have been published. Read More

See it on Scoop.it, via Knowledge Economy

http://www.scoop.it/t/knowledge-economy/p/2052481597/forbidden-knowledge-brainstorm-the-chronicle-of-higher-education Forbidden Knowledge? - Brainstorm - The Chronicle of Higher Education