[nnfy]

Isn't it bad science to suppress findings? Where does one draw the line?

Suppression of results introduces subjectivity and allows for injection of agenda into what should be an objective practice. Not to mention, someone else will likely make the discovery eventually; would you rather suppress your findings and allow say, North Korea to be the first to develop a dangerous technology without any study into countermeasures?

Add this kind of bad practice to the other contemporary problems in research (replicability crisis, p value misuse, etc) and it feels like the modern scientific establishment is regressing.

[lucozade]

> Where does one draw the line?

Traditionally where there are clear military uses that one doesn't want to make available to an enemy.

> would you rather suppress your findings and allow say, North Korea to be the first to develop a dangerous technology

They didn't say they wouldn't share it with anyone, they said they were thinking about not publishing it.

> it feels like the modern scientific establishment is regressing

This isn't new by any means. For example, the development of fission had similar concerns and restrictions nearly a century ago.

[oxide]

This is about fusion, not fission. Your point stands of course!

since they are technically inverse its important to clarify IMO.

[lucozade]

Poor wording on my part. I've made it a little clearer. Thanks

[SubiculumCode]

There are ideals and then are practicalities. Imagine a universe where it was discovered by theoretical modeling that speaking a certain word out loud would cause the earth to explode. Obviously scientists would want to know why or how such a weird phenomenon could exist under natural law, share and study it more. Practically speaking though, publishing it would be the end of life on earht, because one nincompoop of the X billion nincompoops in the world will go ahead and try it.