The ethics of disseminating dual-use knowledge

Abstract

In 2011, for the first time ever, two scientific journals were asked not to publish research papers in full detail. The research in question was on the H5N1 influenza virus (bird flu), and the concern was that the expected public health benefits of disseminating the findings did not outweigh the potential harm should the knowledge be misused for malicious purposes. This constraint raises important ethical concerns as it collides with scientific freedom and openness. In this article, we argue that constraining the dissemination of dual-use knowledge can in certain cases be justified because, for example: scientists have a responsibility for potentially harmful consequences of their research; the public need not always know of all scientific discoveries; uncertainty about the risks of harm may warrant precaution; and expected benefits do not always outweigh potential harm. However, the constraints in question are not absolute but can be both temporary and partial. We propose three core aspects for an ethics of dual-use dissemination: dual-use awareness, precaution, and acknowledgment of conflicting values. Additionally, to help scientists understand when

Biosafety and biosecurity in Synthetic Biology: A review

“…Regardless of the decision-making authority established, it is generally argued that all stakeholders must have an active involvement in decisionmaking processes (Colussi, 2013;Kelle, 2009a), in order to avoid biases or overly severe restrictions (Schmidt et al, 2009). In this vein, MacIntyre (2015) argues that collaboration between community, health, science, law enforcement and defense agencies is necessary to improve global biosecurity, while Kuhlau, H€ oglund, Eriksson, and Evers (2013) say that to govern risks under uncertainty "requires deliberation between scientists and security experts (as well as other stakeholders)" (i.e. public health authorities, ethicists and policy-makers).…”

“…With respect to this possibility, the modification of the highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza virus for transmission between ferrets (Herfst et al, 2012;Imai et al, 2012), is an illustrative case of the conflict that can sometimes arise between the values of knowledge, freedom and openness in sciences and the risks of disseminating dangerous knowledge (Kuhlau et al, 2013). Research on the H5N1 influenza virus led the NSABB to ask Nature and Science (the two journals where the research was to be published) to censor part of the content of the articles.…”

“…In the same vein, Kuhlau et al (2013) reason that "compromises may be justified when scientific knowledge threatens other important values, such as the right to health and security. To protect these values the professional responsibility to do no harm may supersede the responsibility to do good."…”

Freedom and Responsibility in Synthetic Genomics: The Synthetic Yeast Project

“…For example, variation in import and export laws complicate both research and its regulation ( Bar‐Yam et al 2012 ). Already there have been cases where concerns about dual-use research and its potential misuse have affected the dissemination of knowledge ( Kuhlau et al 2013 ). In a recent incident, the Dutch government asked Ron Fouchier to obtain an export permit before he published his work on mammal-to-mammal transmission of H5N1 influenza virus ( Herfst et al 2012 ).…”

How does export compliance influence the internationalization of firms: is it a thread or an opportunity?

“…The integration perspectives of dual-use dissemination would lead to a critical contribution to ethical literature in the life sciences field. Based on Kuhlau et al (2013), three perspectives could be included in such moral codes: dual-use awareness, able to recognize the dual-use dilemma; precaution, able to be reflective and having cautious behavior in circumstances where releasing of knowledge may cause serious risks of detrimental results; affirming conflicting values, prompting an identification that potential harm in specific research circumstances may outweigh expected benefits.…”