Advertisement

Biosecurity Education and Awareness in Neuroscience

Reference work entry

Abstract

This first content chapter of the section starts with a short historical overview of the military interest in neuroscience research. Based on this account, it asks the question of how neuroscience has responded to the ethical issues that have emerged as part of these research activities. An analysis of current ethical training shows that such a debate has been underdeveloped and that the question of dual-use within ethics education of neuroscientists is very limited. Based on these findings the chapter explores the relationship between the security community, specifically, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and how neuroethicists could help the Convention in addressing the lack of awareness within the neuroscience community of the militarization and dual-use of their research and technologies.

Keywords

Ethic Education Ethical Training Biological Weapon Neuroscience Community Military Interest 
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. Atlas, R. M., & Dando, M. R. (2006). The dual-use dilemma for the life sciences: Perspectives, conundrums, and global solutions. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, 4(3), 276–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dando, M. R. (2008). Developing educational modules for life scientists accelerating the process through an open source initiative. Presented to the IWGLNCV biological workshop and round table on fostering the biosecurity norm: An educational module for life sciences students, 27 Oct at the Municipality of Como, Italy.Google Scholar
  3. BTWC. (2008). Report of the meeting of states parties, 12 December, BWC/MSP/2008/5. Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  4. Dando, M. R., & Rappert, B. (2005). Codes of conduct for the life sciences: Some insights from UK academia. Bradford briefing papers, 16 May 2005. http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/briefing/BP_16_2ndseries.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  5. Feaks, D., Rappert, B., & McLeish, C. (2007). Introduction: A web of prevention? In B. Rappert & C. McLeish (Eds.), A web of prevention: Biological weapons, life science and the governance of research (pp. 1–13). London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  6. Freedman, D. (2010) Israle. In B. Rappert (Ed.), Education and ethics in the life sciences: Strengthening the prohibition of biological weapons (pp. 75–91). Canberra: Australian National University E Press. http://epress.anu.edu.au/education_ethics.html. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  7. Fukushi, T. (2012). Neuroethics and biosecurity in Japan, presented at an experts meeting on neuroethics at the University of Bradford, 21 July. Bradford, UK.Google Scholar
  8. Gorski, A., & Spier, R. E. (Eds.)(2010). Special issue section: The advancement of science and the dilemma of dual-use. Science and Engineering Ethics, 16(1), 1–219.Google Scholar
  9. Horgan, J. (2005). The forgotten era of brain chips. Scientific American, 293(4), 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Inter-Academy Panel. (2005). IAP statement on biosecurity. http://www.interacademies.net/File.aspx?id=5401. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  11. Japan in consultation with JACKSNNZ. (2008). Oversight, education, awareness raising, and codes of conduct for preventing the misuse of bio-science and biotechnology, BWC/MSP/2008/MX/WP.21, 14 Aug. http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/5950537.32395172.html. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  12. Kuhlau, F., Eriksson, S. F., Evers, K., & Hoglund, A. T. (2008). Taking due care: Moral obligations in dual use research. Bioethics, 22(9), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lombera, S., Fine, A., Grunau, R. E., & Illes, J. (2010). Ethics in neuroscience graduate training programs: Views and models from Canada. Mind, Brain, and Education, 4(1), 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mancini, G., & Revill, J. (2008). Fostering the biosecurity norm: Biosecurity education for the next generation of life scientists. Bradford: University of Bradford. http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/media/SSIS/Bioethics/docs/European_Case_study.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  15. Miller, S., & Selgelid, M. J. (2007). Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 523–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Millet, P. (2010). The biological weapons convention: Securing biology in the twenty-first century. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 15(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Minehata, M. (2010). An investigation of biosecurity education for life scientists in the Asia Pacific region. Research monograph for the Wellcome Trust project on building a sustainable capacity in dual-use bioethics. Exeter and Bradford: University of Exeter and University of Bradford. http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/media/ssis/bioethics/docs/Asia-Pacific-Biosec-Investigation.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  18. Minehata, M., & Shinomiya, N. (2010). Japan: Obstacles, lesson and future. In B. Rappert (Ed.), Education and ethics in the life sciences: Strengthening the prohibition of biological weapons (pp. 93–114). Canberra: Australian National University E Press. http://epress.anu.edu.au/education_ethics.html Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  19. Moreno, J. D. (2012). Mind wars: Brain science and the military in the twenty-first century (2nd ed.). New York: Bellevue Literary Press.Google Scholar
  20. National Research Council. (2006). Globalization, biosecurity, and the future of the life sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11567. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  21. 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. Washington, DC: National Academies. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12460. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  22. National Research Council. (2010). Challenges and opportunities for education about dual use issues in the life sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12958.
  23. Nature. (2003). Statement on the consideration of biodefence and biosecurity. Nature, 421(6925), 771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Netherlands. (2008). Development of a code of conduct on biosecurity, BWC/MSP/2008/MX/WP.8, July 30. http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/7816224.69425201.html. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  25. NSABB. (2008). Strategic Plan for Outreach and Education on Dual Use Research Issues. Report of the NSABB, Washington, DC: NSABB. http://oba.od.nih.gov/biosecurity/news_events_oba.html#NSABB. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  26. OECD. (2007). Best practice guidelines on biosecurity for BRCS. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  27. Rappert, B. (2010). An action plan for education: Possibilities and plans. Presented at the ESRC-JSPS collaborative seminar: Dual-use education for life scientists: Mapping the current global landscape and developments. 15–16 July, UK: University of Bradford. http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/dube/resource/ESRC_seminar_web/ppt/Rappert_ActionPLan.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  28. Rappert, B., Chevrier, M. I., Dando, M. R. (2006). In-depth implementation of the BTWC: Education and outreach. Bradford review conference papers, 18. http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/briefing/RCP_18.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.
  29. Revill, J., Mancini, G., Minehata, M., Shinomiya, N. (2009). Biosecurity education: Surveys from Europe and Japan. Background paper for the international workshop on promoting education on dual-use issues in the life sciences. 16–18 Nov, Warsaw, Poland: Polish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  30. Sahakian, B. J., & Morein-Zamir, S. (2009). Neuroscientists need neuroethics training. Science, 325, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schliermeier, Q. (2002). Hostage deaths put gas weapons in spotlight. Nature, 420, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Selgelid, M. J. (2007). A tale of two studies: Ethics, bioterrorism, and the censorship of science. The Hastings Centre Report, 37(3), 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, G., Davison, N., Koppelman, B. (2010). The role of scientists in assessing the risks of dual-use research in the life sciences. In J. L. Finney & I. Slaus (Eds.) Assessing the threat of weapons of destruction: The role of independent scientists (pp. 137–140), (NATO Science for Peace and Security Series E: Human and Societal Dynamics – Vol. 61), Amsterdam: IOP Press.Google Scholar
  34. Snyder, P. J. (2009). Delgado’s brave bulls: The marketing of a seductive idea and a lesson for contemporary biomedical research. In P. J. Snyder (Ed.), Science and the media: Delgado’s brave bulls and the ethics of scientific disclosure (pp. 25–40). London: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Society for Neuroscience. (2012), Guidelines for authors of scientific communications, http://www.sfn.org/index.aspx?pagename=responsibleConduct_authorsOfResearchManuscripts. Accessed 13 Nov 2012.
  36. Somerville, M. A., & Atlas, R. M. (2005). Ethics: A weapon to counter bioterrorism. Science, 307(5717), 1881–1882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Streatfeild, D. (2006). Brainwash: The secret history of mind control. London: Hodder & Stoughton.Google Scholar
  38. Walther, G. (2012). Ethics in neuroscience curricula: A survey of Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK, and the US. Neuroethics. [forthcoming]. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-012-9168-2. Accessed 13 Nov 2012.
  39. World Health Organization. (2007). Scientific working group on life science research and global health security: Report of the first meeting, 16–18 Oct 2006, Geneva: WHO. http://www.who.int/entity/csr/resources/publications/deliberate/WHO_CDS_EPR_2007_4n.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Peace StudiesUniversity of BradfordBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations