While surfing the AFNI Message Board today for the first time in several
months, I discovered the notice about the ListServ mirror of the message board.
Since it's easier for me to deal with things when they come to my mailbox (viz.
the several months that it took me to come back and look at the Message Board
web site), I decided to subscribe to the ListServ edition, AFNI-L. I received
an automated acknowledgement of my subscription which contained the following
admonition:

>IMPORTANT: This list is confidential. You should not publicly mention its
>existence, or forward copies of information you have obtained from it to
>third parties.

Since I'm unwilling to be bound by this restriction, I immediately unsubscribed
from AFNI-L and will continue reading the Message Board via the web interface.

I would like to encourage the people who administer AFNI-L to reconsider this
policy. I note that the same information as appears on AFNI-L is already
publicly visible on the message board; therefore this restriction specifically
on AFNI-L's mode of distribution produces only added inconvenience, and not
added secrecy. Furthermore, it's unclear why secrecy is considered a desirable
property for a forum that (quoting from the top-level page of the message
board) `is intended to function as a question asking/answering and idea
exchange center.' Why should a users' group be an exclusive club?

This policy seems part of a disturbing trend of restrictions on the conduct and
dissemination of science that has enveloped the NIH during the past two years.
Some notable elements of this trend are the removal of politically
controversial health information from web sites, the pressure to remove
politically controversial language from grant proposals (see the New York Times
of 18 April, page A10), and the requirement that people attending meetings on
the NIH campus submit to searches of their persons and property. Such moves
are counter to the spirit of free exchange of scientific information, and I
hope that they will be reversed.

While I hope that this meta-discussion of restrictions on AFNI-L is considered
on-topic, I don't want to start a flame war or any extended discussion that
would kill the message board's SNR. To that end, please keep any follow-ups to
the subject of AFNI-L in particular, and if this discussion turns out to be a
high-volume one I would be happy to summarise to the message board any comments
that are sent to me privately and marked for public consumption.

As I am now not on AFNI-L, please cc to me any follow-ups to this message.
(I'll also try to remember to check back at the Message Board site.)

--
Matthew Belmonte <belmonte@mit.edu>
Autism Research Centre
Section of Developmental Psychiatry
University of Cambridge
Douglas House
18b Trumpington Road
Cambridge CB2 2AH, UK