Editors’ Overview: Forbidding Science?

‘‘Forbidding science’’—two words that are likely to strike fear in many scientists, dredging up past abuses such as Galileo’s persecution by the Catholic church and Lysenko’s ideological suppression of most genetic research in Stalin’s Russia. Yet, as the enormous power of science continues to expand into areas that were once unthinkable, including the creation of new species of organisms, the development of ever-more powerful weapon technologies, and the possible redesign of the human body and brain, there is a growing chorus of voices saying there are some places science should not go. Some of these concerns relate to the potential intentionally malevolent misuse of the technology to cause harm, others relate to potential accidental releases or unintentional misapplications of the technology, and still others relate to potential adverse consequences from the intended beneficial use of the technology including the enormous, and often contested, societal transformations the technology might bring. In addition, some have concerns that however potentially beneficial a particular area of research may be, the nature of the research itself is problematic because of the research design and/or the kind of information the investigation is likely to produce. These concerns are spawning proposed research restrictions that limit how, where, and by whom some scientific research is conducted, that restrict the publication and dissemination of research findings, or that ban some research altogether. The conduct of science has, of course, long been regulated. There are regulatory requirements for protecting human research subjects, for promoting the welfare of research animals, for restricting the use and possible accidental release of pathogens, and for properly disposing of potentially hazardous waste materials