This article is republished from National Review with the permission of the author.

Nature — the most prestigious science journal in the world — has editorialized in favor of requiring scientists to register with governments as a condition of participation in the sector.

Here’s the context. South Africa has legislation pending that would require scientists to register with a government body or face significant legal consequences. Nature applauds the authoritarian idea.

From the editorial (my emphasis):

Image Credit: Vic Josh - Adobe Stock

What do engineers, environmental-health officers and health-care workers have in common? These occupations can, in some instances, be practised only by people who have registered with a relevant professional body. This typically requires candidates to pass qualifying exams and adhere to a code of practice that includes sanctions for violations. The process is intended to create the highest standards of quality, ethics and safety…

The text defines ‘practising’ as “rendering of a service or provision of advice in the natural scientific profession”, whether for remuneration or for free…If the law is passed, South Africa could be one of the first countries to make it a legal requirement for scientists to be professionally registered as a community. Anyone who violates the law could be imprisoned for up to a year.

It’s difficult to argue against the principle of aligning scientists with other professions that involve potential risks to people or to the environment.

Conducting scientific research is not the same as testing and licensing physicians. Doctors require a particular set of skills and depth of knowledge to properly care for patients. The same is true of bridge engineers to ensure that the spans they design don’t collapse. But such protections are not necessary with scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe and developing means of applying knowledge to the betterment of humankind.

The editorial quibbles with some of the legislation’s details, such as a lack of consultation with the science establishment to hash out proper terms. It then argues that penalties short of prison should be included for violators:

A prison term for not registering, without evidence of having caused harm, is excessive. There are many ways to incentivize compliance without immediately threatening imprisonment. For instance, rule violations in health-care roles and other professions with strict codes of conduct have a range of repercussions, including fines, termination of employment contracts and being struck off the register.

The editorial concludes on an ominous note that discloses the real reason for supporting registration: It would be a means of controlling who is allowed to “do” science and the ability to determine what can be communicated to the public:

If South Africa gets it right, the law could offer a template for the global community on how to strengthen research integrity, protect the public and distinguish sound scientific advice from misinformation.

This is all wrong! Open debate and freedom of inquiry are essential to the proper functioning of the scientific method. Allowing governments to determine who is allowed to participate in science, and even control what can be communicated, would stifle true scientific discourse, a phenomenon we have already witnessed to our detriment during Covid, regarding climate change, and in the transgender controversies.

Government registration could also be a means to enforce the “scientific consensus,” making heterodox areas of scientific inquiry harder to pursue. Indeed, had such a scheme been in place during the pandemic, scientists who believed that the lab leak hypothesis best explains the catastrophe’s cause could have been muffled. Oh yeah: They were even without registration.

Conversely, registration could exclude scientists with true expertise in favor of charlatans or those with idiosyncratic ideological agendas. For example, what would Nature’s editorialists think if vaccine researchers were required to register with a Department of Health and Human Services led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.? Surely, they would worry that the science published by HHS would be skewed and authorized researchers restricted to vaccine skeptics. Good grief, those charges are already leveled against RFK without a registration requirement!

Registration could also exclude “amateurs” deemed to lack the requisite education and training from participating in the scientific discourse. Examples of famous amateur scientists who successfully added to human knowledge? Jane Goodall, Steve Jobs, Thomas Edison, Gregor Mendel, Benjamin Franklin, and yes, even Charles Darwin himself.

Limiting who can participate in science would stifle progress. Censoring differing opinions would not protect the public. Today’s scientific “misinformation” is tomorrow’s established understanding. Allowing government to control the depth and scope of scientific inquiry is a prescription for authoritarianism.

In short, Nature’s editorial is scandalously anti-science.