Wesley Smith writes for National Review Online about the latest bad idea from a leading science journal.
Nature — the most prestigious science journal in the world — has editorialized in favor of requiring scientists to register with governments as a condition of participation in the sector.
Here’s the context. South Africa has legislation pending that would require scientists to register with a government body or face significant legal consequences. Nature applauds the authoritarian idea. …
… Conducting scientific research is not the same as testing and licensing physicians. Doctors require a particular set of skills and depth of knowledge to properly care for patients. The same is true of bridge engineers to ensure that the spans they design don’t collapse. But such protections are not necessary with scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and developing means of applying knowledge to the betterment of humankind.
The editorial quibbles with some of the legislation’s details, such as a lack of consultation with the science establishment to hash out proper terms. It then argues that penalties short of prison should be included for violators:
“A prison term for not registering, without evidence of having caused harm, is excessive. There are many ways to incentivize compliance without immediately threatening imprisonment. For instance, rule violations in health-care roles and other professions with strict codes of conduct have a range of repercussions, including fines, termination of employment contracts and being struck off the register.”
The editorial concludes on an ominous note that discloses the real reason for supporting registration: It would be a means of controlling who is allowed to “do” science and the ability to determine what can be communicated to the public. …
… This is all wrong! Open debate and freedom of inquiry are essential to the proper functioning of the scientific method. Allowing governments to determine who is allowed to participate in science, and even control what can be communicated, would stifle true scientific discourse, a phenomenon we have already witnessed to our detriment during Covid, regarding climate change, and in the transgender controversies.
