In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.

(CNN) -- On Tuesday, a federal advisory panel, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, recommended that university scientists who have submitted articles on how to modify a flu virus to two very prestigious journals delete critical information from them before publishing. The papers describe how to alter bird-flu virus to be more infectious and potentially nastier. Yes, this is same bird flu virus that, as it moved into pigs, was freaking us all out last year. If you had the detailed map of the viral changes needed, then either a terrorist or an amateur "garage" biologist operating without the right safeguards would have a very effective critter for killing you and me. If there is one thing that scientists hate, it is any policy that restricts research in any way. Scientists are taught that they need to be bold in asking questions and not let anything deter them from following their thinking wherever it leads, no matter how unpopular that might be. They are also taught the absolute necessity of making their claims public in reputable journals so that other scientists can subject them to the critical skepticism from which the truth ultimately emerges. Once in a long while, however, the price of the truth is simply too high to let scientists disclose their findings publicly. That is so when it comes to publishing detailed information about dangerous viruses and microbes. We don't have to hide the genetic map for a killer avian flu virus from all eyes. Access to some who have clearance to see it should be possible. If that is done, then the truth will still be known about whether those making claims of being able to engineer the virus can actually do so. To go further with potentially catastrophic data is to court trouble. There are those who will say that the only way to fight terror is to adhere to those values that have proven crucial to the advance of science over the decades. The more we know, the worse for the terrorists. Unfortunately, that is no longer the world we live in. The ethics of inquiry need to adapt. Handing the complete formula for making a nasty pandemic bug to any nut with access to the Internet or a subscription to a scientific journal makes no sense in a world that has seen the use of anthrax and sarin as weapons of terror. Freedom is key to good science. Freedom from terror is also key to good science. When they conflict, the latter is more important freedom than the former. Journals and those who write for them ought to do all they can to try and ensure that most important freedom. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Arthur Caplan.
For first time, a federal panel has advised that science journals censor flu study facts .
The papers describe how to alter bird-flu virus to be more potent, says Arthur Caplan .
Scientists generally hate policies that restrict research in any way, Caplan says .
Caplan: Sometimes risk is too high to let scientists openly disclose their findings .

Ten years ago I was one of a small number of UK lawyers who opposed the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it was illegal and unauthorised by the United Nations. We were all strong advocates of the notion that the rule of law was the bedrock of any civilised and democratic society. Without it our lives would be subject to a free for all in which might becomes right. The embodiment of the rule of law internationally has been the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- direct results of the devastation inflicted by the Nazi regime in Germany during the Second World War. No one wanted a repeat of such flagrant aggression, so the Charter was drawn up to replace gunboat diplomacy with peaceful measures overseen by the U.N. Security Council. This was not a new vision. In 1945 the U.N. Charter was ratified by the U.S., the UK, and the majority of the 50 states who had originally agreed to this framework. Thrashed out by experts and with massive support behind it, the document was no maverick, outlandish or oddball agreement. The Charter is not gobbledygook -- it is full of common sense, and it should be obligatory reading in every school. OPINION: Why Iraq War was fought for oil . Article 1 makes clear that the main purpose of the U.N. is to "maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace" and to act in accordance with justice and the principles of international law. It is for the U.N. to determine what collective measures should be taken -- not for individual states to take unilateral or bilateral action. This is not rocket science, but the simple application of restraint and respect for the rules that Britain and America agreed to when they signed the Charter. But this is not what happened 10 years ago at the behest of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Their agenda was quite different -- to remove a dictator, Saddam Hussein, whose regime was abhorrent. But regime change, however desirable, is not permitted by the Charter. If it were, the powerful nations could go round the world picking off the weak -- or more particularly the states thought to be hostile to their own ambitions. In case some politicians found it difficult to understand all this, Article 2(4) spelled it out in unequivocal terms: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". Everyone recognised there might have to be exceptions to this rule, but the Charter specifically does not authorize preemptive nor preventative action(i.e. getting in first) on the basis of a perceived future threat. INTERACTIVE: How has the war changed you? The only way around this predicament was for the Bush-Blair axis to fabricate a case of threat. This they did by the knowing manipulation of flawed intelligence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (which were never found), and the bogus claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy such WMD within a 45-minute window. This argument, which was false, became the main basis for invasion because the only other route to war had been closed off by international law. The U.N. has the power to authorise military intervention once all other options have been exhausted and the peace and stability of a region is in jeopardy. At the time it became a debate about whether Iraq satisfied these criteria by its failure to abide by U.N. resolutions concerning disarmament. The principal Security Council resolution 1441, adopted in November 2002, called on Iraq to disarm its WMD and cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. The Council made clear they continued to be in charge but had not authorised the use of force in Iraq. EXCLUSIVE: Hans Blix on 'terrible mistake' in Iraq . Tony Blair insisted to the British public that he would only support a war if a second Security Council resolution authorising the action was passed, but the resolution never came. Bush and Blair realised they would never get one, and so they prepared to go it alone with a cobbled together coalition. Troops had already been committed on the ground. There was no going back. This was why Bush and Blair were not prepared to allow the weapons inspectors, who were in Iraq, any more time. Inspectors had found no evidence of WMD in the lead-up to the war and never did, but were ordered to go home. I am not alone in these views. There is a substantial consensus of international legal opinion which recognises the illegality of the invasion. Kofi Annan, then the U.N. Secretary General, told the BBC in 2004 that the Charter had been breached and that the invasion was not sanctioned by the Security Council. FULL COVERAGE: The Iraq War, 10 years on . In the UK we are still waiting for the results of a public inquiry into the circumstances in which the decision to go to war was taken. Blair never wanted this inquiry but was forced by the power of the victims' families and public opinion to accede. So far two years have gone by while the government has obstructed disclosure and publication. It is intolerable and inexcusable. I believe George W. Bush and Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes as defined by international law. In 1998 the International Criminal Court was established to deal with individuals who commit international crimes. Four transgressions were agreed -- war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression. Unfortunately only the first three have been brought into effect. The UK, to their credit, signed up to the court. But the U.S. did not, lest its leaders end up accused of crimes before the court. ARWA DAMON: Iraq suffocates in cloak of sorrow . Whilst the act of aggression cannot be prosecuted, war crimes committed thereafter can be. So for example to launch an attack, like the invasion of Iraq, with the knowledge that its effect is likely to cause incidental death or injury to civilians or the natural environment (Article 8) will render the perpetrator liable to prosecution. The use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium in Iraq by coalition forces (euphemistically called collateral damage) upon vulnerable civilians falls within this definition. As a result, a legal consortium of which I was a part, and other groups in Europe, petitioned the ICC for action against UK politicians over their involvement in the war. Nothing has happened. Getting U.S leaders hauled before the court is even more problematic -- the Security Council could refer Americans to the court, but the U.S. is a permanent Council member and can veto any potential referral. Alternatively individual member states could incorporate these crimes of universal jurisdiction into their own domestic law. Then if a U.S. perpetrator of war crimes travelled into that country's jurisdiction, they could be arrested. The UK has such a provision, but when put to the test by UK citizens seeking arrest warrants in relation to the planned visits of Israeli political and military leaders -- who were potentially responsible for war crimes in Gaza -- the UK government reprehensibly placed impediments in the way of its future use. So George W. Bush can safely plan a visit for tea with Tony Blair in London without fear of prosecution in the UK. The whole episode regarding the Iraq War is a tawdry tale that has subverted the rule of law and tarnished the reputation of international law. Without accountability for Western states, how can we expect the rest of world to respect these principles? It is time for Bush and Blair to be thoroughly, independently and judicially investigated for the crimes I suggest have been committed and it is time for the crime of aggression to come into force. Until this is redressed, la lotta continua!
Mansfield: Bush, Blair should be tried for war crimes over invasion of Iraq .
Mansfied: Regime change is not permitted by the U.N. Charter .
Mansfield: Charter does not authorize preemptive action based on perceived threat .

Conservative Republicans are painting Latino immigrants as Ebola carriers to fan the anti-immigration reform movement, but health experts say those fears are grossly overstated. Officials say there have been no reported cases of Ebola-infected migrants entering the United States through Mexico and border authorities reject claims that the border is not secure. Still many politicians continue to raise the alarm, seeking to derail immigration reform -- already delayed several times by Congress and the President. On Thursday, former Massachusetts senator and now New Hampshire Senate candidate Scott Brown said that he doesn't want undocumented immigrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border because they might be carrying Ebola. "One of the reasons why I've been so adamant about closing our border, because if people are coming through normal channels -- can you imagine what they can do through our porous borders?" Brown said in a radio interview. Republican candidate Thom Tillis, running for a Senate seat in North Carolina, said in a debate on Tuesday that the United States should seal its border with Mexico to prevent the spread of Ebola, while Rand Paul, the Kentucky senator and potential presidential candidate in 2016, said last week that the southern border is not secure enough to keep out Ebola. The countries most affected by the virus are Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia in West Africa. According to Carl Meacham, director of the America's program at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, the largest communities of West Africans in Latin America can be found in Brazil and the Caribbean -- not Central America, where the majority of immigrants who illegally cross the border are from. Julio Varela, founder of Latino Rebels, an opinionated Latino-issues website, questioned the motivation of such fears. "I am starting to think that this is all some kind of mix-and-match game of fear," he said. "You take the most extreme examples of xenophobic hysteria -- Mexicans, terrorists, ISIS, the border crisis and Ebola -- and mash them all together to create a new narrative of craziness," he added. The Ebolification of immigration reform has been going on for months. In July, Georgia Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey, a medical doctor, wrote a letter to Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, expressing his concern that the influx of families and unaccompanied minors at the U.S.-Mexico border could pose a grave public health risk. "Reports of illegal migrants carrying deadly diseases such as swine flu, dengue fever, Ebola virus and tuberculosis are particularly concerning," he wrote. Unaccompanied migrant children posed a particular risk, he said, because they could spread the disease too quickly to be controlled, once in the United States. He urged the CDC to immediately assess the situation and notify the public of risks. During an August hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee's subcommittee on Africa, Frieden dismissed the possibility of Ebola reaching the United States via the southern border. "That is not happening," he said. Other health officials agree with Frieden. They call threats, like the one Gingrey describes, as farfetched. There has never been an outbreak of Ebola in Latin America, said Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. That makes it extremely unlikely for a child or adult entering the United States via Mexico to be infected with the disease. Unswayed by the medical community's assertions of safety, far-right  conservative politicians and their sympathizers have gone even further. Fox News host Chris Wallace suggested that an Ebola infested terrorist could enter through the southern border and wage biological warfare. Meanwhile, Arkansas Republican Rep. Tom Cotton, currently running for Senate, said that terror groups are collaborating with drug cartels in Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson denied these allegations Thursday and warned against creating fear and anxiety in the public by passing on speculation and rumor. Some Latino Republicans have tried to distance themselves from the Ebola and ISIS border fears. "I am saddened to see some conservatives use fear of deadly diseases to push an immigration restriction agenda. Their claims are generally vastly overblown and I am especially disappointed in Rep. Phil Gingrey, who is a medical doctor and should know better," said Bob Quasius, president of Café Con Leche Republicans.

Conservatives claim Latino immigrants can carry Ebola .
Health experts say those accusations are overstated .
Several Republican candidates suggest the U.S. should seal the border with Mexico .