Self-Censorship Limits Science More Than Laws, Study Says

[quaoar]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0210_050210_censorship.html

Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News

February 10, 2005
Self-censorship may play a greater role in suppressing scientific research than laws or regulations, according to a new study.

What scientists can and cannot do is, to an extent, officially dictated. For example, human cloning and embryonic stem cell creation have been restricted or banned by some governments.

But the new study suggests that such regulations pale in comparison to informal constraints—the possibility that findings could provoke moral outrage, for example.

"What we found is that researchers are very aware of controversy and decide what to study ... in relation to what they think is appropriate," said Joanna Kempner, a sociologist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "It's these silent rules that really guide what researchers do."

[Rex]

1. Well, yeah, we don't need any Dr Frankensteins.

They (govts that censor) do go to far IMO when it comes to obvious benefits from things like stem cells. I'm not really sure how I feel about human cloning. For example - in the 15th century there were 450 million people on the planet. Just 500 years later? 6 billion plus. Do we really NEED to clone humans?

[Maple]

2. Yes we do

It's not like anyone is planning on turning out millions of them. But we have to know how it's done, learn what's involved, and see where that research takes us.

Need a kidney replacement? Clone your own kidney. No rejection problems. No waiting lists for the right match.