abstract:Transparency was not always a desired aspect of medicine or STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) research. In the late 1940s, the Nuremberg Code heralded a new era of informed patient consent, research subject protection, and the view that the public had a stake in emerging technology and should have some knowledge and input into the directions of scientific research. This understanding intensified in the United States with the very public discussions leading to the promulgation of the NIH Guidelines for Recombinant DNA Research in the 1970s. The way in which oversight of recombinant DNA research was handled is still the exception rather than the rule. Starting in the 1990s, various terror incidents led to the enactment of statutes and issuance of regulations that undermined the ability of scientists and research institutions to self-regulate and in some cases to disseminate information freely. This essay explores how the scientific community got to this status quo, and how it could regain some measure of control despite competing needs for transparency and security, so that research critical to biosecurity is supported rather than impeded.

中文翻译：

---

谁应该推动美国的科学政策？

摘要：透明度并不总是医学或 STEM（科学、技术、工程和数学）研究的理想方面。在 1940 年代后期，纽伦堡法典预示着患者知情同意、研究对象保护以及公众对新兴技术的利害攸关，应该对科学研究方向有一定的了解和投入的观点的新时代。随着 1970 年代 NIH 重组 DNA 研究指南的颁布，这种理解在美国得到了加强。处理重组 DNA 研究监督的方式仍然是例外而不是规则。从 1990 年代开始，各种恐怖事件导致颁布法令和颁布条例，削弱了科学家和研究机构的自我调节能力，在某些情况下还可以自由传播信息。本文探讨了科学界如何达到这种现状，以及在透明度和安全性方面存在竞争需求的情况下，它如何能够重新获得一定程度的控制，从而支持而不是阻碍对生物安全至关重要的研究。