We've spent a lot of time this semester discussing science communication. However, we didn't really address science censorship. Today, I started thinking about censorship and science when I was reading this story on cnn.com.
The story basically discusses an increase in "detergent suicides" in Japan. People have been following "recipes" online that help them commit suicide by mixing several household chemicals that release toxic fumes. The fumes are so strong that entire apartment buildings have to be evacuated.
Japan has the highest suicide rate in the world, and the country is working to reduce the number of suicides by 20%. In order to help address the suicide issue, the government has asked Internet providers in Japan to censor sites that contain methods for suicide. Today, many "scientific recipes"for suicide, bombs, etc. can be found online. I'm interested to see what others in the class think about the government censoring websites like these.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
That's pretty intense. I think censoring this type of thing is the right thing to do, especially because it has the potential to harm so many other people in the process. It's not just a matter of hurting yourself. Of course, whenever talking about censoring, the discussion is bound to come up about what restrictions the government should be allowed to put up. In a case like this, though, reducing access to resources may reduce the harm done to innocent bystanders, if not the unfortunate event of suicide itself.
When we start talking about censoring the methods to commit suicide, it will eventually lead to a "right to die" argument rather than science censorship argument. There is also the argument that there are about a million other ways to commit suicide.
I'd have to agree with the first comment. This is a different issue from suicide itself. I am personally a firm believer in being allowed to do whatever you want, so long as it doesn't impact the lives of others. But with these "suicide bombs," it's a completely different story. Obviously the toxic fumes can harm many people.
I think when it comes to censorship of science, the most important question is this: if we do decide that certain scientific knowledge should be censored, who gets to decide what's censored? The problem is that whoever gets to decide what gets censored is given the power to control what scientific reality is for the rest of us. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Personally, although I believe that government is too incompetent to be threatening, I still wouldn't feel comfortable giving that kind of power to a single person, or even a legislative body.
There will always be problems beyond our control, and as desirable as it might be to be able to fix some, I think the potential slippery slopes we face are too risk to start altering scientific reality.
I'm glad the government is focusing on improving the conditions that can cause suicide; censorship, in this case, isn't their only focus.
This reminds me of a similar internet quandary closer to home; young women are setting up websites to support and promote anorexia. These sites not only introduce teenagers into a dangerous lifestyle, but they allege that it is a choice, not a disease. These websites maintain that they should be able to treat their bodies however they choose, and those who would seek to get them help are really impinging on their personal freedom.
This is a truly complex issue and everyone here has raised very good points. However, the fundamental question becomes: how much do people want the government making moral decisions for them? My opinion is that if Americans give the government license to make these types of judgment calls, then it becomes a slippery slope.
In class, we touched on censorship when we looked at early scientific developments with the atomic bomb, in this case I think it is absolutely acceptable for the government to censor science communication, but I don't think this issue relates to science comm censorship. When we talk about censorship of science, in mind, that involves allowing the general public to know or not know about scientific advancements and other information. Censorship in this case, has nothing to with withholding scientific information to the general public, but, instead, inhibiting people's ability to obtain combinations of lethal chemical mixtures. Censorship here is much more about violence than science. Chemists would still publish any necessary information about these mixtures--while "how-to" sites would be prohibited.
Nonetheless, the argument I was initially making is the same as Brendan's. Giving the government this kind of power opens the door to more control. After this last administration, I would never the trust the government with this authority.
In a country facing such rampant suicides, limiting access to potentially hazardous information might be the morally responsible action for the government to take. This is in a sense a health epidemic, and the government should try to protect its citizens. While it might argued that its an individuals right to choose what they want to do with their body, the judgment of these people might not be pyschologically sound. Allowing these websites to continue might put people that could otherwise live normally with counseling, treatment, and family support in a dangerous position to hurt themselves. Additionally, the public health concern for others that could be affected by toxic chemicals must be considered. Censorship in this case might be actually be the right thing to do.
Although the censorship was in regards to a harmful topic, I find it hard to agree with censorship in science. Once censoring is made where is the line drawn between what can and can't be censored. However, I do believe that such things as suicides should be shielded from the public. Leaving out more depressing and potentially harmful topics is more benficial than releasing it publicly. Ultimately, it is hard to support censorship in science and in doing so the media can not control what is seen by the public.
Post a Comment