Data Sharing and Dual-Use Issues

Abstract

The concept of dual-use encapsulates the potential for well-intentioned, beneficial scientific research to also be misused by a third party for malicious ends. The concept of dual-use challenges scientists to look beyond the immediate outcomes of their research and to develop an awareness of possible future (mis)uses of scientific research. Since 2001 much attention has been paid to the possible need to regulate the dual-use potential of the life sciences. Regulation initiatives fall under two broad categories-those that develop the ethical education of scientists and foster an awareness and responsibility of dual-use issues, and those which assess the regulation of information being generated by current research. Both types of initiatives are premised on a cautious, risk-adverse philosophy which advocates careful examination of all future endpoints of research endeavors. This caution advocated within initiatives such as pre-publication review of journal articles contrasts to the obligation to share underpinning data sharing discussions. As the dual-use debate has yet to make a significant impact on data sharing discussions (and vice versa) it is possible that these two areas of knowledge control may present areas of ethical conflict for scientists, and thus need to be more closely examined. This paper examines the tension between the obligation to share exemplified by data sharing principles and the concerns raised by the risk-cautious culture of the dual-use debates. The paper concludes by reflecting on the issues of responsibility as raised by dual-use as relating to data sharing, such as the chain of custody for shared data.

What Drives Academic Data Sharing?

“…Eschenfelder and Johnson [24] suggest more control for researchers over deposited data (see also [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]). According to some scholars, a priority right for publications, for example an embargo on data (e.g., [33]), would enable academic data sharing.…”

Towards the Ethical Publication of Country of Origin Information (COI) in the Asylum Process

“…17 This approach is in line with that generally taken by academic institutions when assessing the publication of dual-use research, for example, in the context of peer-review journals and institutional pre-publication review. 18 However, the potential for misuse is not solely an intrinsic property of COI reports, but also an imposed property (Bezuidenhout 2013). That is, the potential misuse of COI reports also depends on how they are used by other actors in the asylum claim and appeal process, in potentially new contexts unrelated to those in which the reports were conceived, and in combination with other information, possibly including other COI reports.…”

Condiciones legales y administrativas para la secuenciación del genoma humano en el ámbito militar

“…En ese sentido la aplicación sí vendría ligada a la idea de "contribuir al esfuerzo militar" y estaría fuera de las actividades puramente humanitarias que englobadas dentro del término defensa civil tienen ese especial tratamiento, y dejaría pues de tener estrictamente fines pacífi-cos, pues en definitiva, favorecen "dañar al enemigo". En este caso pues, no parece admisible ni la investigación ni el almacenamiento de datos genéticos o de muestras del personal al servicio de la administración militar y de las Fuerzas Armadas, aunque restaría la dificultad del régimen jurídico del "doble uso" 16 . Ejemplificativo a estos efectos es que en la interpretación del PA.I.CG los avisos de bombardeo se consideran actividad de defensa civil, pero no en el caso de que se den en acuartelamientos 17 .…”