The concept of governance in dual-use research
- 449 Downloads
The rapid advance of life science within the context of increased international concern over the potential misuse of findings has resulted in the lack of agreement on the issues of responsibility, control and collaboration. This progress of knowledge outpaces the efforts of creating moral and legal guidelines for the detection and minimization of the risks in the research process. There is a need to identify and address normative aspects of dual-use research. This paper focuses on the issues of safety and global collaboration in life science research by highlighting the importance of openness, enabling policies and cooperative governance. These safeguards are believed to reduce the risks related to the misuse of science while enabling the important research to move forward. The paper addresses the need for a better definition of dual use concept and, based on the historical precedents, explores the moral concerns and governmental strategies of dual-use research. The three necessary moves in addressing the issue of security in life sciences are suggested: the move from constraining to enabling types of policies, the move from secrecy to openness, and the move from segregation to integration of the public voice.
KeywordsAcademic freedom Bioterrorism Dual-use research of concern Research oversight Research safety Risk–benefit assessment
- As quoted in “J. Robert Oppenheimer” by L. Barnett, in Life, Vol. 7, No. 9, International Edition (24 October 1949), p. 58.Google Scholar
- Atkinson, Richard.C. 1978. Rights and responsibilities in scientific research. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 34(10): 10–14.Google Scholar
- Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2001a. Principles of biomedical ethics, 5. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Beauchamp, T.L., and J.F. Childress. 2001b. Principles of biomedical ethics, 117–123. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. 2005. Report of the meeting of experts. BWC/MSP/2005/MX/3. Geneva, 5 August. http://www.opbw.org/new_process/mx2005/bwc_msp.2005_mx_3_E.pdf.
- Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. 2008. Report of the meeting of experts. BWC/MSP/2008/MX/3. Geneva, 8 September. http://www.opbw.org/new_process/mx2008/BWC_MSP_2008_MX_3_E.pdf.
- Cohen, P. 2003. Recipes for bioterror. New Scientist 177(2378): 10–11.Google Scholar
- Committee on Publication Ethics. About COPE. http://publicationethics.org/about. Accessed September 18, 2013.
- Committee on Research Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology, National Research Council of the National Academies, Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism (The Fink Report). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004, p. 15.Google Scholar
- Committee on Research Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology, National Research Council of the National Academies, Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism (The Fink Report). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004, p. 12.Google Scholar
- David Malakoff. 2012. US requires new dual-use biological research reviews. Science Insider March 29, 2012. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/03/us-requires-new-dual-use-biologi.html.
- Epstein, Gerald L. 2001. Controlling biological warfare threats: Resolving potential tensions among the research community, industry, and the national security community. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 27(4): 321–354.Google Scholar
- Harris, E.D. 2012. Dual use biotechnology research: The case for protective oversight. In A web of prevention: Biological weapons, life sciences and the governance of research, ed. C. McLeish, and B. Rappert, 116–117. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- InterAcademy Council, and IAP. 2012. Responsible conduct in the global research enterprise: A policy report. Amsterdam: IAC Secretariat; Trieste: IAP Secretariat. http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=19789.
- International Atomic Energy Agency. History of the IAEA. http://www.iaea.org/About/history.html. Accessed on 7/25/2012.
- Jackson, R. J. et al. (2001). Expression of mouse interleukin-4 by a recombinant ectromelia virus suppresses cytolytic lymphocyte responses and overcomes genetic resistance to mousepox. Journal of Virology 75(3): 1205–1210. Google Scholar
- Jones, S., and J. Karreth. 2011. Assessing the economic impact of adopting strategic trade controls. Retrieved from: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/156673.pdf (2010), 11 (note 25).
- Keele, Alexander. 2012. H5N1: Bungling dual-use governance. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 29 March 2012. http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/alexander-kelle/h5n1-bungling-dual-use-governance.
- Knowles, L.P. 2012. Current dual-use governance measures. In A web of prevention: Biological weapons, life sciences and the governance of research, ed. C. McLeish, and B. Rappert, 45. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Koblentz, G.D. 2009. Living weapons: Biological warfare and international security. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 235. Google Scholar
- Kruger, Heleen, Lyndal Thompson, Rachel Clarke, Nyree Stenekes, and Anna Carr. 2009. Engaging in biosecurity: Gap analysis. Canberra: Australian Government: Bureau of Rural Sciences 39.Google Scholar
- MacKenzie, D. 2003. US develops lethal new viruses. New Scientist 29: 6–7.Google Scholar
- McLeish, C., and B. Rappert. 2012. A web of prevention: Biological weapons, life sciences and the governance of research, 33. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Morgan, M.G. 1993 Risk analysis and management. Scientific American 32–41.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. 2004. Biotechnology research in an age of terrorism. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences. http://www.nap.edu/books/0309089778/html/.
- National Research Council. (2009). A survey of attitudes and actions on dual use research in the life sciences: A collaborative effort of the national research council and the American Association for the advancement of science, 135–136. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- National Research Council, A Survey of Attitudes and Actions on Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences: A Collaborative Effort of the National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (National Academies Press, 2009), 135–136.Google Scholar
- Obama Barack. 2009. National strategy for countering biological threats. 8, 13, 15–16. Washington DC: National Security Council.Google Scholar
- Proposed Framework for the Oversight of Dual Use Life Sciences Research: Strategies for Minimizing the Potential Misuse of Research Information. A Report of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). June 2007. p. 17 retrieved from: http://www.biosecurityboard.gov/Framework%20for%20transmittal%200807_Sept07.pdf. Accessed 7/25/12.
- Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Secrecy, Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, 1 July 1970. http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dsbrep.html.
- Resnik, D. 2010. Can scientists regulate the publication of dual use research? Studies in Ethics, Law and Technology 4(1). Article 6.Google Scholar
- Scolve, R. 2010. Reinventing technology assessment: A 21 century model. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. 43. http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ReinventingTechnologyAssessment1.pdf.
- Steinbruner, John, Elisa D. Harris, Nancy Gallagher, and Stacy Gunther. 2003. Controlling dangerous pathogens: A prototype protective oversight system, 5 February 2003. www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/pathogens_project_monograph.pdf. Accessed September 18, 2013.
- Tucker, J.B., and R. Danzing. 2012. Innovation, dual use, and security: Managing the risks of emerging biological and chemical technologies, 19. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- United Nations. Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction (10 April 1972). http://www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B8954/(httpAssets)/C4048678A93B6934C1257188004848D0/$file/BWC-text-English.pdf.
- US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: Assessing the risks, OTA-ISC-559. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, August 1993, 1011.Google Scholar
- Wilson, David A. 1986. Federal control of information in academic science. Jurimetrics J 27: 283.Google Scholar
- World Health Organization. 2012. Report on technical consultation on H5N1 research issues. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar