Ever since 9/11 there have been calls from various groups (including the present administration) that some scientific research should not be published as it may find its way into the hands of terrorists who would abuse it. In particular, we are talking about information related to bioterrorism. Scientists of course don't like the idea of censoring their information. Those who speak out agains censorship are called irresponsible and do not fully understand the war on terror. In a letter to the journal Nature today, D. Whitlock rightfully points out that since 2001 only 5 people have been killed through bioterrorism (the short lived anthrax scare). On the other hand, 30,000 people a year are killed by guns in the U.S. (more than the next 10 industrialized countries combind). Yet, whenver gun laws come up there is nothing but shrill protestations from the NRA about obstructing constitutional rights. So, what's worse: bioterrorism or guns? Personally, I'd feel a lot safer it the assault weapons ban were back in place. It's also worth noting that the Senate is considering a bill (which will likely be passed) that would absolve gun manufactures from any wrong doing when their guns and ammunition are used in crimes. The pretense (according to Bill Frist): manufacturers would eventually go out of business. So, is the Second Ammendment more valid than the First? Time will tell.