Bio-Terror Vs. Freedom of Speech

I read an article today that got me thinking about where we should draw the line between publishing scientific progress and boi-terror concerns about application.

"Some scientists are asking the key question: exactly how real is the threat? When an effective bomb can be made cheaply from fertilizer, would a terrorist bother with the work entailed in creating a virus?"

Although it is scary to think of a terrorist made weaponised virus being released, so many things could go wrong it might not even be a viable expense for terrorists to undertake. With all the cost involved (I'd say a minimum of 50k) for something that could go through 1 mutation that could render it useless. (although according to the article there are some bio weapons you can make in your kitchen sink, but I would think there would be some equipment cost.) This is scary stuff when you think about the possibility that someone who would use such a virus could easily make it.

"A group of scientists at a small laboratory in the Australian outback are conducting experiments on mice. An extra gene has been inserted into a mild mousepox virus in an attempt to produce a contraceptive vaccine for pest control. But instead of the usual side-effect of making the mice feel mildly ill, the mutated virus causes worrying symptoms. Lesions break out on the animals' skin, and the mice appear to be in considerable pain. The pustules grow and begin to bleed until they are so densely packed that the skin looks like crepe rubber. One by one, the mice die a lingering, suppurating death."

education.guardian.co.uk...

Is it that bad of an article? You would think at least one person would of replied even if it was about mold in their sink that they are experimenting with.