“How and why don't I describe my method of staying underwater and how long I can stay there without coming up for air? I do not wish to disclose or publish it because of the evil nature of men, who could use it to kill at the bottom of the sea. – Leonardo Da Vinci [1].The process of scientific publication, through which new discoveries are presented to the scientific community and the public, is a vital element of the pursuit of knowledge. The methodical approach latent in scientific inquiry across disciplines is the key to innovation. Advances made in the scientific community bring clear benefits to the general public, particularly in the areas of biological and medical research. The cumulative benefits of the free flow of information have enabled the development of a variety of life-saving drugs, vaccines, antibiotics, insulin, and many other hormones. Therefore, open communication of research work is not simply a luxury – but a necessary condition – for scientific productivity and knowledge dispersion. However, in recent years, the US federal government has censored or attempted to censor some publications of “dual-use research,” research that produces new technologies or information with the potential for both benevolent and malicious applications [2], due of national security. worries. In the early days of atomic research, nuclear physicists realized that discoveries such as nuclear fission and the chain reaction could provide new sources of energy; but they also saw that they could be used for nefarious purposes: to destroy humanity. In recent years, life scientists have found themselves in similar situations. While new developments in genetics and biotechnology could revolutionize medical knowledge... at the heart of the paper, to share with anyone who is interested" and that secrecy "strikes at the root of what science is and what science is for ” [14]. In this sense, repressive public policy interventions inherently contradict scientists' goals, namely the dispersion of productive knowledge. Despite decades of scientific publications, there is no evidence that they are terrorists or otherwise. Some groups have attempted to use publicly available dual-use research to use biological weapons. At the same time, there is strong evidence that concerns about the dangers of dual-use research are slowing the progress of the life sciences - dual-use research has failed to demonstrate how its measures would actually improve safety. Risk must be balanced with probability, and in the absence of a credible threat, research censorship should be reduced.