The Union of Concerned Scientists is even concerned about interference into the "deliberate nature of science research". Scientists learn about something new and have to digest and discuss it and research it further without interference to learn its impact.
My concerns have long been based in the media who seem to insist on hyping tiny developments in research, particularly cancer research, to be the biggest breakthrough since sliced bread. While I appreciate First Amendment rights for freedom of information and I do not think that anything but the truth should be published. I think we need to learn the whole story when the research is completed before being subjected to media hype.
If a clinical trial was based on FOUR people, as I blogged about last year, it is NOT newsworthy. Or if its a preliminary breakthrough which was not the goal of the study, why are you telling us this? And if you are only looking for a reason to derail someone else's work, why don't you wait until they are done (unless you truly have a scientific reason, not a personal agenda) to tell us about it. Research takes time and is not going to be ready for the evening news, until it is complete.
This holds true for all types of research. Time is a requirement of research. And even with the internet and open access an expectation, we need to allow the research to be completed before airing it. This also is the case for clinical trials and FDA approvals.
Okay, this is a pet peeve of mine.