In this particular case, probably the researchers. And, to their credit, the authorities seem to have recognised that. After months of fraught deliberation involving the world's leading virologists, journal editors, security experts, ethicists and policymakers, the Americans reversed their stance on April 20th (see article). The Dutch were reconsidering theirs as The Economistwent to press.

　　The reason is that, as bioterrorists go, humans pale in comparison with nature. Even America's security services, which might be expected to err on the side of caution, seem to agree that the odds of a bioterror attack are long. Biological weapons require skilled scientists working in state-of-the-art facilities. Even then, they are unpredictable—and therefore difficult to control. A deadly bug might come back to bite its maker, possibly before it had been made into a weapon. Aum Shinrikyo, a sect with sophisticated scientific capability, toyed with anthrax in 1993. But for its most brazen attack, when it killed 13 people in the Tokyo metro two years later, it preferred nerve gas. In September 2001 al-Qaeda plumped for aeroplanes.

　　Nature, by contrast, has form. in this area. From the Black Death via Spanish flu to AIDS, bacteria and viruses have killed on a scale that terrorists and dictators can only dream of. The more you gag scientists or hide data, the harder it is for them to look for cures; you also probably drive bright young researchers away towards less fraught, blander areas.

　　Natural-born killers

　　At the moment, then, the natural threat seems greater than the artificial one. And it is brave of America's authorities to recognise that. If a terrorist outrage does happen, they will surely get the blame. By contrast, “acts of nature” are more easily shrugged off as, as it were, acts of God.

　　This case does, however, highlight a problem that is only going to grow. The atom bomb is a child of physics. Nerve gas is a child of chemistry. These are both old, mature sciences. Biotechnology is new. Its potential and limits are obscure. This time America has made the right decision. It is to be hoped that the Dutch will soon follow suit. But it behoves everyone—politicians and scientists alike—to keep a close eye on a fast-changing technology and on any shift in the balance of risks.

　　【簡析】

　　科學家們研制出了一種新型病毒，可以迅速傳播危害巨大，但是政府卻不允許他們的科學成果予以發(fā)表。究竟是誰在理呢？經(jīng)過激烈討論，美國最終選擇允許科研結果發(fā)表，荷蘭可能也會改變立場。與其掩藏危險，不如主動尋找解決辦法。文章最后提問，原子彈是物理科學的產(chǎn)物，神經(jīng)毒氣是化學科學的產(chǎn)物，如今新的生物科技又帶來了新的挑戰(zhàn)。我們，我們的科學家，政府，政客，又應該如何應對？