Advertisement

Biosecurity pp 60-78 | Cite as

Science of Mass Destruction: How Biosecurity Became an Issue for Academies of Science

  • Koos van der Bruggen
Chapter
Part of the New Security Challenges Series book series (NSECH)

Abstract

The growing interest in biosecurity outlined in other chapters in this volume has reached the international academic arena. Many national and international scientific organisations are involved in these issues in a way they were not in the past; including national academies of sciences. This chapter concentrates on the role of the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) on International Affairs and on the debates and discussions in the Netherlands where the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) developed a national Code of Conduct for Biosecurity.

Keywords

Health Council Dutch Government Human Security Biological Weapon Life Science Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bakker E 2008. CBRN terrorisme. In ER Muller, U Rosenthal and R. de Wijk (eds) Terrorisme. Deventer: Kluwer, pp. 125–48.Google Scholar
  2. Fidler DP and Gostin LD 2008. Biosecurity in the Global Age. Biological Weapons, Public Health and the Rule of Law. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Guthrie R 2007. Rising out of the Doldrums. Report of the BWC Review Conference Disarmament Today, nr. 84 (http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd84/index.htm).
  4. Health Council (Gezondheidsraad) 2001. Verdediging tegen bioterrorisme. Den Haag: GezondheidsraadGoogle Scholar
  5. Health Council (Gezondheidsraad) 2002 Bioterrorisme: vervolgadvies. Gezondheidsraad: Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  6. Human Security Centre 2005. The Human Security Report 2005. War and Peace in the 21st Century. New York–Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kamerstuk 1997–1998, 25600 X, nr. 9, Tweede Kamer.Google Scholar
  8. Kellman B 2007. Bioviolence, Preventing Biological Terror and Crime. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. KNAW 2007. A Code of Conduct on Biosecurity. Amsterdam: KNAW.Google Scholar
  10. NRC (National Research Council)–Committee on Research, Standards and Practices to prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology, Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. Washington DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  11. Rappert B 2007. Biotechnology, Security, and the Search for Limits. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Tijmstra T 2001. Het imperatieve karakter van medische technologie en de betekenis van ‘geanticipeerde beslissingsspijt’ (The imperative character of medical technology and the meaning of anticipated decision regret). Berg M and A Mol (ed.) (2001), Ingebouwde Normen. Medische Technieken Doorgelicht, Utrecht: Van der Wees, pp. 40–5.Google Scholar
  13. UN (United Nations) 2002. Final Document of the Fifth Review Conference of the State Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (Geneva, 19 November–7 December 2001 and 11–22 November 2002). Geneva.Google Scholar
  14. Wagenaar W 2002. False confessions after repeated interrogation: The Putten Murder Case. European Review, 10: 519–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koos van der Bruggen 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Koos van der Bruggen

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations