rant on the morality of confidentiality

[Blanc]

Vladerusky:

Your original post brought up several separate aspects which can be
considered separately and may not necessarily coexist in the same place at
the same time:

1)  secrecy
2)  responsibility for publishing
3)  working for the government at the expense of unwilling payors
4)  the motivations of "true scientists"
5)  the requirements for the advancement of science
6)  the need of science for the works of great minds

Initially your argument had to do with secrecy and the need for scientists
to publish their work so that the scientific community may benefit from it.
  I can't disagree that if a scientist is working for the public, that they
should make their work publically available to them, since, after all, they
are supposedly working for the public benefit.

But you also said that "a key aspect of SCIENCE is publishing".    I was
only pointing out that, in the context of those who are working for their
own purposes and not under the employment of a government agency, some
scientists are not overly concerned about contributing to this advancement,
as can be observed by their reluctance to publish (even if they eventually
do, "under the extreme pressure of friends", for instance).

It may be your conclusion that the advancement of science depends upon
scientists publishing their works, but the fact is that some great
scientists, and many others as well, are not as motivated to contribute as
you think is proper for a "true scientist".

I think you should distinguish between those scientistis who have joined
some kind of "scientific community" and have established an obligation to
share the results of their work with that group, and those scientists who
are what they are, and do what they do, from motivations unrelated to such
communities.
    ..
Blanc