Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evolution of Different Dual-use Concepts in International and National Law and Its Implications on Research Ethics and Governance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper provides an overview of the various dual-use concepts applied in national and international non-proliferation and anti-terrorism legislation, such as the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, and national export control legislation and in relevant codes of conduct. While there is a vast literature covering dual-use concepts in particular with regard to life sciences, this is the first paper that incorporates into such discussion the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540. In addition, recent developments such as the extension of dual-use export control legislation in the area of human rights protection are also identified and reviewed. The discussion of dual-use concepts is hereby undertaken in the context of human- and/or national-security-based approaches to security. This paper discusses four main concepts of dual use as applied today in international and national law: civilian versus military, peaceful versus non-peaceful, legitimate versus illegitimate and benevolent versus malevolent. In addition, the usage of the term to describe positive technology spin-offs between civilian and military applications is also briefly addressed. Attention is also given to the roles civil society and research ethics may play in the governance of dual-use sciences and technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. United States Congress. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1993). Defense Conversion: Redirecting r&d. OTA-ITE-552. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  2. http://beta-www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/licensing/commerce-control-list-classification/export-control-classification-number-eccn.

  3. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/june/tradoc_143390.pdf.

  4. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/internal_market/single_market_for_goods/external_dimension/cx0005_en.htm.

  5. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2012:085:0001:0036:EN:PDF.

  6. http://www.bis.doc.gov/news/2013/2013_foreign_policy_report.pdf.

  7. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0383+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN.

  8. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/prepcom13/statements/24April_SouthAfrica.pdf.

  9. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=NPT/CONF.2010/50%20(VOL.I).

  10. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/Res/59/290.

  11. http://www.opcw.org/index.php?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=16406.

  12. http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/92CFF2CB73D4806DC12572BC00319612?OpenDocument.

  13. http://oba.od.nih.gov/biosecurity/pdf/Framework%20for%20transmittal%200807_Sept07.pdf.

  14. http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/biosecurity/PDF/03302012_NSABB_Recommendations.pdf.

  15. http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/biosecurity/PDF/United_States_Government_Policy_for_Oversight_of_DURC_FINAL_version_032812.pdf.

  16. http://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/oversight-durc.pdf.

  17. http://www.who.int/csr/durc/durc_feb2013_full_mtg_report.pdf.

  18. http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/european-group-ethics/docs/opinion25_en.pdf.

  19. UNDP (1994). Human Development Report, http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr1994/chapters.

  20. Articl 16/2 of Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing Horizon 2020—The Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52011PC0809:EN:NOT.

  21. United States Congress. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1993).

  22. United States Congress. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1994).

  23. International Committee of the Red Cross. Appeal on Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross; September 25, 2002. http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList515/274D020806432963C1256C3E005C4338.

  24. United States Government Policy for Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/biosecurity/pdf/united_states_government_policy_for_oversight_of_durc_final_version_032812.pdf.

  25. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2013/09/court-upholds-need-for-export-permits-for-risky-flu-research.html.

References

  • Alexy, R. (1978). Eine Theorie des praktischen Diskurses. In: Oelmüller, W (Hrsg.) Transzendentalphilosophische Normbegründung. Paderborn: Schöningh.

  • Atlas, R. M., & Dando, M. (2006). The dual-use dilemma for the life sciences: Perspectives, conundrums, and global solutions. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefence Strategy, Practice and Science, 4(3), 276–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezuidenhout, L. (2012). Research infrastructures, policies and the “web of prevention”: The ethical implications on inadequate research environments. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 28(1), 19–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Book of Genesis 11, 1–9, http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0111.htm.

  • Brzoska, M. (2006). Trends in global military and civilian research and development and their changing interface. In Proceedings of the International Seminar on Defence Finance and Economics, 13–15 November 2006 (pp. 289–302). New Delhi, India S.

  • Casadevall, A., Enquist, L., Imperiale, M. J., Keim, P., Osterholm, M. T., & Relman, D. A. (2013) Redaction of sensitive data in the publication of dual use research of concern. MBio 5(1). doi:10.1128/mBio.00991-13.

  • Ehni, H.-J. (2008). Dual use and the ethical responsibility of scientists. Archivum Immunologiae et therapiae Experimentalis, 56, 147–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forge, J. (2010). A note on the definition of “dual use”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16, 111–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galev, T. (2003). Questioning “dual use” concept. IAS-STS Work-in-Progress Workshop, March 13.

  • Gewirtz, P. (1996). On ‘I Know It When I See It’. Yale Law Journal, 105, 1023–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1991). Erläuterungen zur Diskursethik, ISBN: 978-3-518-28575-6, Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft.

  • Herfst, S., Schrauwen, E. J., Linster, M., Chutinimitkul, S., de Wit, E., Munster, V. J., et al. (2012). Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. Science, 336(6088), 1534–1541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D. C., & Hirsch, M. S. (2013). Novel Clostridium botulinum Toxin and Dual Use Research of Concern Issues. J Infect Dis. doi:10.1093/infdis/jit528 (Advance Access published October 7, 2013).

  • Imai, M., Watanabe, T., Hatta, M., Das, S. C., Ozawa, M., Shinya, K., et al. (2012). Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets. Nature, 486(7403), 420–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khrustalev, E. J., & Rassadin, V. N. (2012). Organizational-economic mechanism of diffusion of technology and dual-use items. Journal National Interests Priorities and Safety 28(169).

  • Kuhlau, F. (2013). Responsible conduct in dual use research towards an ethic of deliberation in the life sciences. http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:603143/FULLTEXT01.pdf.

  • McLeish, C., & Nightingale, P. (2005). The impact of dual use controls on Uk science: Results from a pilot study. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, 132 https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=sewp132&site=25.

  • Miller, S., & Selgelid, M. J. (2007). Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13, 523–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2004). Biotechnology research in an age of terrorism. Washington: National Academies of Science Press.

  • National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity (NSABB). (2007). Proposed framework for the oversight of dual use life sciences research. http://oba.od.nih.gov/biosecurity/pdf/Framework%20for%20transmittal%200807_Sept07.pdf.

  • Nuclear Supplier Group. (1974). http://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/A_test/01-eng/09-guide.php?%20button=9.

  • Paris, R. (2004). Still and inscrutable concept. Security Dialogue, 35, 370–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rappert, B. (2008). The benefits, risks, and threats of biotechnology. Science & Public Policy, 35(1), 37–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2009). What is dual use research? A response to Miller and Selgelid (2009). Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 3–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selgelid, M. (2009). Ethics engagement of the dual-use dilemma: Progress and potential. In: B. Rappert (ed.) Education and ethics in the life sciences: Strengthening the prohibition of biological weapons (pp. 23–43). Canberra: ANU E Press. http://press.anu.edu.au?p=51221.

  • Steyn, B. (2013). Understanding the implications of UN Security Council Resolution 1540. African Security Review, 14(1), 85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suk, J. E., Zmorzynska, A., Hunger, I., Biederbick, W., & Sasse, J. (2011). Dual-use research and technological diffusion: reconsidering the bioterrorism threat spectrum. PLoS Pathogens, 7(1), e1001253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uhlenhaut, C., Burger, R., & Schaade, L. (2013). Protecting Society. Biological security and dual use dilemma in the life sciences—status quo and options for the future. EMBO Report, 14(1), 25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Congress. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1993). Defense Conversion: Redirecting r&d. OTA-ITE-552. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • United States Congress. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1994). Assessing the Potential for Civil-Military Integration. OTA-ISS-611. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • United States Government Policy for Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern. (2013). http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/biosecurity/PDF/United_States_Government_Policy_for_Oversight_of_DURC_FINAL_version_032812.pdf.

  • Van der Bruggen, K. (2012). Possibilities, intentions and threats: Dual use in life sciences reconsidered. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18, 741–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department Integrative Zoologie, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    Johannes Rath & Monique Ischi

  2. UN Security Council 1540 Committee, Group of Experts, New York, NY, USA

    Dana Perkins

Authors
  1. Johannes Rath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monique Ischi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dana Perkins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Rath.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rath, J., Ischi, M. & Perkins, D. Evolution of Different Dual-use Concepts in International and National Law and Its Implications on Research Ethics and Governance. Sci Eng Ethics 20, 769–790 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9519-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9519-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation