Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 10 October 2007 | Nature 449, 646-647 (2007) | doi:10.1038/449646b
News
Europe ponders restrictions on life sciences
Plan for two-tier publications gets cool reception.
European biologists have criticized the idea of a 'two-tier' research publication system floated by the European Commission.
In a 'green paper' published on 11 July, the commission asked whether sensitive biological research should be published twice: a public version without sensitive content and a full-content one for “relevant bio-stakeholders”.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Dear Sir, as a biologist I am well aware of the caveats regarding publication of "sensitive" informations. However, I still consider censorship the wrong solution. This is based on a few simple considerations: 1) rarely censorship worked in the past in preventing leakage of informations, even when it was ruled by governmental laws; 2) in the settings of scientific research, flow of informations is not only essential, but is and has been ever considered a distinguishing feature of the scientific community. The only restriction to public circulation of scientific results is the peer-review process, aimed to assess the scientific quality and correctness of the informations, as opposed to other contexts where information is subjected to "overhead" control; 3) the effectiveness of any censorship process is strictly dependent on the "ab initio" definition of the filtering criteria. What is "sensitive" and what is not. This implies that changes in the cultural, political, social issues and their impact on the censors might affect the kind of informations which will be classified as "sensitive", raising the possibility of a sort of control on scientific informations. Given these considerations, a possible solution might be to enforce the restrictions to the access not to informations but to the material itself (i.e. viral isolates, constructs, reagents), through the creation of a repository as, for example, the NIH AIDS Research and Reference Reagent Program. Restricted access only to certified scientific institutions, as well as requirements, for "sensitive" material, of a fully documented justification for the request, including maybe official papers countersigned by a major governmental safety body (Minister of Health or similar), will possibily be a more effective measure. Certainly, less dangerous for the freedom of science. Giovanni Maga, PhD National Research Council Inst. of Molecular Genetics, Pavia (Italy)