And as I've heard here so very often - "If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about."
You usually hold the position that that statement is nonsense, but suddenly you’ve embraced it to try to make your point.
An expert in any area (stem cell research, energy, weapons development, etc.) can have an opinion that he sincerely believes, but would rather not state publicly for a variety of reasons. The opinion may be controversial, and revealing it could have a negative effect on his stock price, for example.
Since he is beholden to his shareholders, he cannot express that opinion publicly, though he may sincerely believe it and he may be absolutely correct.
I think government officials need to hear those opinions.
If the government then makes policy decisions based on that input, they can state their reasons for it, without any negative impact on those from the private sector who offered their expert advice.
The elected official needs to be held accountable for policy decisions, not those private citizens who offer their opinions about it.
Free people are entitled to privacy. Public servants hired to serve our best interests are not. We're their boss, and we are entitled to know what they're doing. An ignorant electorate cannot make intelligent informed opinions. The difference in their privacy vs ours comes from who serves who.
An expert in any area (stem cell research, energy, weapons development, etc.) can have an opinion that he sincerely believes, but would rather not state publicly for a variety of reasons. The opinion may be controversial, and revealing it could have a negative effect on his stock price, for example.
How about a compromise - the consulants can remain anonymous, but what they say is public?
Dead, you seem like a reasonable person. Can you not see the immense potential for abuse here, and the danger of an ignorant electorate?