It's time to stop the censorship of scienceHow responsible are scientists for science and its applications? In a recent issue of the journal Science, the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Sir Joseph Rotblat, proposes a Hippocratic Oath for scientists. He is strongly against the idea that science is neutral and that scientists should not be blamed for its misapplication. He then proposes an oath, or pledge, initiated by the Pugwash Group in the United States (Science 286, 1475 1999). “I promise to work for a better world, in which science and technology are used in socially responsible ways. I will not use my education for purposes intended to harm humans or the environment. Throughout my career, I will consider the ethical implications of my work before taking action. Although the demands placed on me may be great, I sign this statement because I recognize that individual responsibility is the first step on the path to peace." These are truly noble goals that all citizens should aspire to. enroll, but it presents some serious difficulties in relation to science. Contrary to Rotblat's view, I argue that reliable scientific knowledge is morally and ethically neutral and that ethics only come into play when science is applied to the making of a product, for example genetically modified foods (Science is dangerous ? Nature 398, 281). If genes are responsible for determining some of our behaviors, this is how the world is: it is neither good nor bad. Knowledge can be used for both good and evil. Of course, scientists in their work have the responsibility of all citizens to do no harm and to be honest. Their further responsibility is to place their work and its possible applications in the public domain. Rotblat does not want to distinguish between scientific knowledge and its application, but the very nature of science is that it is not possible to predict what will be discovered or how these discoveries might be applied. Cloning provides a nice example. The original studies related to cloning were largely the work of biologists in the 1960s. They were studying how frog embryos develop and wanted to find out whether genes found in the cell's nucleus had been lost or permanently turned off during the embryo's development. This involved reinserting the nuclei of cells from later stages of development, including adult cells, into an egg from which the nucleus had been removed to determine whether the genes in that nucleus would allow the egg to develop..