Biosecurity as a Normative Challenge

Reference work entry

Abstract

The ongoing progress of biotechnology constitutes a major governance challenge, not least because the same advances that promise to enhance human welfare could potentially enable the development of novel biological weaponry systems. To address the multifaceted security concerns arising from the life sciences, a range of top-down policy initiatives and legally binding regulations have been introduced, but their overall impact on the practices of life scientists has remained limited. Given that laws in every sphere of activity are dependent upon the vitality of social and/or professional norms, the chapter aims to enquire into the normative foundation of the biosecurity regulations. It contends that there is a disjuncture between the conduct of life scientists and the rules pertaining to biosecurity stemming from the lack of corresponding norms in the professional culture of life science research. This disjuncture largely manifests itself in three forms, namely, ignorance of the existing biosecurity regulatory framework, arrogance motivated mainly but not exclusively by the belief that science should enjoy unconstrained freedom, and acts of open defiance of the rules. The chapter concludes by examining the value of biosecurity education and awareness raising in addressing the security challenges posed by biotechnology and fostering a culture of research that is keenly aware of and responsive to the norm of biological nonproliferation.

Keywords

Life Science Legal Rule Female Genital Mutilation 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. Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and Switzerland (on behalf of the “JACKSNNZ”), Kenya, Pakistan, Sweden Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. (2011). Possible approaches to education and awareness-raising among life scientists. BWC/CONF.VII/WP20/Rev.1. United Nations. http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G11/643/57/PDF/G1164357.pdf?OpenElement. Accessed 7 Dec 2012.
  2. Becker, G. S. (1996). Accounting for tastes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Butler, D. (2012). Mutant-flu researcher plans to publish even without permission. Nature News. http://www.nature.com/news/mutant-flu-researcher-plans-to-publish-even-without-permission-1.10469. Accessed 12 July 2013.
  4. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (BTWC). (1972). Full text of the Convention available at http://www.opbw.org/. Accessed 18 Dec 2012.
  5. Dando, M. (2010). How the 7th Review Conference of the 2011 BWC can improve life scientists’ understanding of biosecurity and the dual use dilemma. Seminar delivered as part of the Science and global security series, University of Princeton. http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/seminars/biosecurity/archives/. Accessed 12 July 2013.
  6. Dando, M., & Rappert, B. (2005). Codes of conduct for life sciences: Some insights from UK Academia. Briefing paper no.16 (2nd series). University Bradford. www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc. Accessed 1 Nov 2010.
  7. Editorial. (2012a). For better or worse. Nature, 484, 415.Google Scholar
  8. Editorial. (2012b). Publishing risky research. Nature, 485, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Enserink, M., & Malakoff, D. (2003). The trials of Thomas Butler. Science, 302(5653), 2054–2063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Federation of American Scientists. (2006). In support of Butler, T. C. Resource documents. http://www.fas.org/butler/index.html. Accessed 18 Dec 2012.
  11. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2008). Nuclear security culture: Implementing guide. IAEA nuclear security series, no.7. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1347_web.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2012.
  12. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2010a). Educational programme in nuclear security. IAEA nuclear security series, no.12. http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1439_web.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2012.
  13. International Atomic Energy Agency (2010b). International Nuclear Security Education Network (INSEN). http://www-ns.iaea.org/security/workshops/insen-wshop.asp. Accessed 7 Dec 2012.
  14. National Research Council. (2004). Biotechnology research in an age of terrorism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  15. National Research Council. (2006). Globalization, biosecurity, and the future of the life sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  16. Novossiolova, T., & Whitby, S. (2011). Building capacity in dual-use bioethics: Biosecurity education for life scientists. New Security Learning, 2. http://www.newsecuritylearning.com/index.php/feature/78-building-capacity-in-dual-use-bioethics-biosecurity-education-for-life-scientists-. Accessed 13 July 2013.
  17. Perez, D. (2012). H5N1 debates: Hung up on the wrong questions. Science, 335(6070), 799–801.Google Scholar
  18. Posner, R., & Rasmusen, E. (1999). Creating and enforcing norms, with special reference to sanctions. International Review of Law and Economics, 19, 369–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rappert, B. (2007). Biotechnology, security and the search for limits: An inquiry into research and methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rappert, B. (2009). Experimental secrets: International security, codes, and the future of research. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  21. Tamanaha, B. (2001). A general jurisprudence of law and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. The Royal Society. (2012). Brain waves module 3: Neuroscience, conflict and security. Report. The Royal Society. http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/brain-waves/2012-02-06-BW3.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2012.
  23. United Nations Security Council. (2004). UNSC Resolution 1540. http://www.un.org/en/sc/1540/. Accessed 18 Dec 2012.
  24. Vickers, G. (1972). The management of conflict. Futures, 4(2), 126–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vickers, G. (1973). Values, norms and policies. Policy Studies, 4, 103–111.Google Scholar
  26. Whitby, S. (2012). Strengthening the biological weapons convention: Preserving academic and scientific freedom. Science, People and Politics, 3(2). http://www.gavaghancommunications.com/sppwhitby.html. Accessed 7 Dec 2012.
  27. Whitman, J. (2009). The fundamentals of global governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. World Health Organisation. (2005). International health regulations (2nd ed.). http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9789241580410_eng.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bradford Disarmament Research CentreDivision of Peace Studies, University of BradfordBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations