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.

Example Input: (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.
Example Output: 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 .

Example Input: LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Former detainees of Immigration and Customs Enforcement accuse the agency in a lawsuit of forcibly injecting them with psychotropic drugs while trying to shuttle them out of the country during their deportation. Raymond Soeoth, pictured here with his wife, says he was injected with drugs by ICE agents against his will. One of the drugs in question is the potent anti-psychotic drug Haldol, which is often used to treat schizophrenia or other mental illnesses. Doctors say they are required to see patients in person before such drugs are administered. Two immigrants, Raymond Soeoth of Indonesia and Amadou Diouf of Senegal in West Africa, told CNN they were injected with the drugs against their will. Both are plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against the government. They are seeking an end to the alleged practice and unspecified damages.  Watch why the former detainees claim abuse » . Dr. Paul Appelbaum, a professor of psychiatry, law and ethics at Columbia University, reviewed both men's medical records for this report and was stunned by what he discovered. "I'm really shocked to find out that the government has been using physicians and using potent medications in this way," said Appelbaum, who also serves as a member of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. "That is the sort of thing that would be subject to a malpractice claim in the civilian world." The allegations of ICE forcibly drugging deportees were raised last month by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, during the re-nomination hearing of ICE chief Julie Myers. "The information the committee has received from ICE regarding the forced drugging of immigration detainees is extremely troubling, particularly since it appears ICE may have violated its own detention standards," Lieberman spokeswoman Leslie Phillips told CNN in an e-mail. "Senator Lieberman intends to follow up with ICE to ensure that detainees are not drugged unless there is a medical reason to do so." ACLU attorney Ahilan Arulanantham, who is representing Soeoth and Diouf, said, "It would be torture to give a powerful anti-psychotic drug to somebody who isn't even mentally ill. ... But here, it's happening on U.S. soil to an immigrant the government is trying to deport." Responding to Lieberman's written questions, Myers said 1,073 immigration detainees had "medical escorts" for deportation since 2003. From October last year to the end of April this year, she said 56 received psychotropic medications during the removal process. Of those, 33 detainees received medication "because of combative behavior with the imminent risk of danger to others and/or self," she said. "First, I am aware of, and deeply concerned about reports that past practices may not have conformed to ICE detention standards," Myers said. She added no detainee should be "involuntarily medicated without court order," except in emergency situations. But both Soeoth and Diouf say they had not exhibited any combative behavior. Soeoth, a Christian minister from Indonesia, spent 27 months in detention awaiting deportation after his bid for political asylum was rejected. Hours before he was to be sent back home on December 7, 2004, he says guards injected him with a mystery drug that made him groggy for two days. See the document that shows Soeoth was injected . "They pushed me on the bench, they opened my pants, and they just give me injection," he said through broken English. He says he was taken to Los Angeles International Airport while in this drug-induced stupor, but two hours before takeoff, airline security refused to transport him, so ICE agents returned him to his cell at Terminal Island near Los Angeles. Terminal Island, once a federal prison, is a crowded facility along the ocean where hundreds of illegal immigrants await deportation. Soeoth's medical records indicate he was injected with Cogentin and Haldol, even though those same records show he has no history of mental illness. In the records, the government says he was injected with the drug after he said he would kill himself if deported -- a remark Soeoth denies ever making. ICE said in a written statement it couldn't respond to specific allegations due to pending litigation. "Department of Homeland Security law enforcement personnel may not and do not prescribe or administer medication to detainees," the ICE statement said. "Only trained and qualified medical professionals, including officers of the U.S. Public Health Service, may prescribe or administer medication." But, Diouf says, he was injected on the plane right before he was to be deported. He said he even had a federal stay of his deportation -- and the paperwork to prove it -- but his U.S. government escorts wouldn't let him show it to the pilot of the plane preparing to fly him out of the country. See Diouf's stay of deportation document . That's when, he says, "I was wrestled to the ground and injected through my clothes." A government report says he was medicated because he did not follow orders. In both cases, Diouf and Soeoth remain in the United States pending a decision in the case. If they lose, they may land back in the hands of ICE, once again facing deportation. Soeoth says he's traumatized by what happened. "I know this country [is] very generous to immigrants," he says. "What they did to me was very, very bad." E-mail to a friend . CNN's Wayne Drash, Traci Tamura and Gregg Cane contributed to this report.
Example Output: Detainees file suit against ICE, allege they were injected with drugs .
One detainee tells CNN: "What they did to me was very, very bad"
ICE says 1,073 detainees have had "medical escorts" since 2003 .
Sen. Lieberman vows to investigate further; spokesman calls charges "troubling"

Example Input: HONG KONG, China (CNN) -- In the decade since the 1997 handover of Hong Kong to China, local movie-makers have faced daunting changes in the industry. A trend of fewer films being produced each year in Hong Kong at the time of the handover has continued into the 21st century. Stephen Chow's "Shaolin Soccer" is one of Hong Kong's all-time top-grossing films. People in Hong Kong's industry point to several causes for the comparatively leaner times: a lack of opportunities for new acting talent, inadequate training and schooling for people who produce movies and changing tastes within the Hong Kong public. At the same time, local film-makers have had to refocus their cameras for a new audience: mainland China. "The Hong Kong film industry came to a rude awakening [in the late 1990s] that the world was changing faster than it was in the age of new delivery systems for home entertainment and the Internet," says Bede Cheng, a local film archivist and curator. "Unfortunately, it seemed to be blinded by the 'golden age' of the '80s, where any film could easily rack in over $1.3 million." The box office numbers are sobering. In the early 1990s, Hong Kong released around 200 local features a year. By 1997, that number dropped to 85 films grossing $69 million, according to the Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories Motion Picture Industry Association (MPIA). By 2006, those figures slumped to 51 films grossing $37 million. Ten years ago, the top 10 grossing films accounted for 47 percent of the total box-office return; today, the portion is 58 percent. "1997, unfortunately, coincides with the beginning of the collapse of the local film industry -- a well-documented fact," says screenwriter Jimmy Ngai. "On the other hand, it also commenced the opening up of the mainland market. "The result is that the industry has grown more and more accustomed to looking north for both investment and box return -- nothing political, but more of a survival instinct. What needs not to be spelt out for film-makers venturing north is that one plays according to what goes with the territory." The new Chinese market has translated into an emphasis in contrasts of Hong Kong-made films, says film archivist Cheng. "Today production is down, with many majors like Chinastar and Golden Harvest scaling back," he says. "Most films are high-end productions with big stars, or low-end made with a shoestring budget for an easier return. "The number of screens is also down, with the consolidation of more multiplexes, usually owned or partly owned by distributors, which already have a steady supply of foreign films to fill the screens. Some once video distributors like Mei Ah and Universe have gone into production as a way to keep the pipeline flowing." In 2006, Hong Kong closed five small cinemas and re-opened one multiplex. Gary Mak, director of Broadway Cinematheque -- Hong Kong's last-remaining alternative-screening venue -- remains optimistic about more adventurous programming and distribution. But Mak points to a shortage of creativity in the local industry. "No talents, no formal training, in most areas such as script-writing, directing, acting, etc," he says. "Even the independent scene still needs more real talents -- or at least, real producers to pull together a really good project." Tim Youngs, Hong Kong consultant for Italy's Far East Film Festival, says changing tastes among Hong Kong movie-goers has also affected the industry. "Audiences have become increasingly dismissive of local movies, often referring to them as poor quality, and there are much fewer paying cinemagoers these days. "So the hometown audience shows less support for local movies, whether by not seeing local films or opting for piracy, while the declining number of films means less opportunities for film-makers, fewer chances to try out new things, and damage to confidence." Elizabeth Kerr, film critic and curator formerly based in Seoul, South Korea, agrees with Youngs' assessment. "For all the risk-taking businessmen out there [in Hong Kong], no one is willing to put their money where their mouth is and throw in some support. "The industry for the most part suffers from the cleave between that fluff -- which makes money -- and the more adult film-making of the smaller studios, distributors and indies." How is South Korea's film industry different from its Hong Kong counterpart? "The drive to attain world adoration," Kerr says. "Koreans truly believe they're making great art all the time. South Korea launched an active campaign on all levels -- corporate, government, education -- to train and cultivate a modern film industry." Still, Kerr sees reason for optimism. Films that best retain a Hong Kong style, Kerr maintains, likely carry "Category III" (under 18 not allowed) ratings: Movies that are "grown up and smart," she says. "Even if the films don't work, someone tried." In the end, it may be culture that poses one of the greatest challenges for Hong Kong's movie industry. "Around 1997, like lots of Hong Kong people, I kind of lost myself," says independent film-maker Chan Wing-chiu. "The film industry was already almost dead in the '90s. Why work for a sunset industry?" Chan's own first feature in 2005, "A Side, B Side, Sea Side," includes a scene with a gaggle of girls on Hong Kong's Cheung Chau island who are unable to communicate in Chinese with an Australian man speaking fluent Mandarin. The two parties end up conversing in English. "That's me," says Chan, referring to the girls. "I speak English better than Putonghua [China's official common language, also known as Mandarin]. Many Chinese say that now that Hong Kong is part of China, Hong Kong people must learn Putonghua. I disagree. In Hong Kong we all speak Cantonese. Hong Kong already has a bad reputation for Putonghua, but I don't feel ashamed. I'm proud to have grown up during the transition between 1997 and SAR. "Why do we have so many problems with China? Because our language, our culture, our values, our way of thinking are different. So we are not good at speaking Putonghua. Even in the cinema, we see Western movies, Japanese movies, Korean movies... but not many Chinese movies." Adds independent director Yan-yan Mak: "We are monsters. China says: 'You are not Chinese.' Gweilos [Hong Kong slang for Caucasians] say: 'You are Chinese.' After 1997, we lost the confidence to be Hong Kong people." E-mail to a friend .
Example Output:
Hong Kong film production has dropped almost 75 percent since early 1990s .
Mainland investment and market influences quality of Hong Kong films .
Problems include few opportunities for new talents and little audience support .

