The Morality of Data Suppression
The importance of verifiable and reliable data cannot be overstated. Data has been at the heart of solving some of the greatest challenges facing mankind. Be it a previously incurable disease to understanding the origin of the species, data has transcended the academic arena, where it has had its home, to the wider populace, informing almost every aspect of our lives.
Without data, the world would still be flat, merely kissing a girl would get her pregnant and the spreading of diseases would still be blamed on witches and wizards. Data has built whole industries, in the forms of social media platforms like LinkedIn, and saved lives from persecution and even death. I think you can tell I am data geek, but more than that I'm a fervent believer in open source data, especially when it helps improve the quality of people's lives.
However, what fascinates me more than the value of data is the inconvenience of data. Oftentimes, this inconvenience stems, not from the data in and of itself, but rather the interpretation of that data by the end users. In my line of work, I have seen data suppressed by various interest groups due to, mostly, the implications for their material survival (aka self-interest), e.g. politicians have blocked the dissemination of water data due to its likely detrimental effect on aid flows - no aid means no new wells which means no votes. I have, personally, been on the receiving end of intense confirmation bias where NGOs have rejected processed field data which didn't fit their world-view; only for the data to be verified through independent sources.
Though data is valuable, it can also be inconvenient, leading to its suppression from public view.
When we think data suppression, it usually conjures up Orwellian notions of censorship and state control of content/conversation, but is the "wrongness" of data suppression absolute? Besides the unethical act of "doxing*" someone, are there times when data suppression could actually be for the common good?
Could data suppression, sometimes, be moral?
Lately, I have been challenged by alternative schools of thought that suggest that some data should be suppressed, particularly if it conflicts with principles of social justice e.g. studies that show a correlation between race and IQ or studies that demonstrate that the wage gap between men and women does not exist. Should such findings be shared at all, especially in view of how some segments of society will use the findings to validate harm or discrimination?
By extension, should those who endeavor to demystify the unknown, i.e. scientists, researchers and evaluation experts, consider the worst case scenario of how their findings will be used prior to undertaking a study/research?
I believe data is indiscriminate, but these are hard questions and I don't have the answers. I would love to hear your views, experience and opinions about this question: When is data suppression the right/moral thing to do?
* Doxing - search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.