On the Dual Uses of Science and Ethics Principles, Practices, and Prospects

Ethics, humanity, techonolog

Human Challenge Studies in Endemic Settings

This open access book provides an extensive review of ethical and regulatory issues related to human infection challenge studies, with a particular focus on the expansion of this type of research into endemic settings and/or low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Human challenge studies (HCS) involve the intentional infection of research participants, and this type of research is rapidly increasing in frequency worldwide. HCS are widely considered to be an especially promising approach to vaccine development, including for pathogens endemic to LMICs. However, challenge studies are sometimes controversial and raise complex ethical issues, some of which are especially salient in endemic and/or LMIC settings. Informed by qualitative interviews with experts in infectious diseases and bioethics, this book highlights areas of ethical consensus and controversy concerning this kind of research. As the first volume to focus on ethical issues associated with human challenge studies, it sets the agenda for further work in this important area of global health research; contributes to current debates in research ethics; and aims to inform regulatory policy and research practice. Insofar as it focuses on HCS in (endemic) settings where diseases are present and/or widespread, much of the analysis provided here is directly relevant to HCS involving pandemic diseases including COVID19

Human Challenge Studies in Endemic Settings

This open access book provides an extensive review of ethical and regulatory issues related to human infection challenge studies, with a particular focus on the expansion of this type of research into endemic settings and/or low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Human challenge studies (HCS) involve the intentional infection of research participants, and this type of research is rapidly increasing in frequency worldwide. HCS are widely considered to be an especially promising approach to vaccine development, including for pathogens endemic to LMICs. However, challenge studies are sometimes controversial and raise complex ethical issues, some of which are especially salient in endemic and/or LMIC settings. Informed by qualitative interviews with experts in infectious diseases and bioethics, this book highlights areas of ethical consensus and controversy concerning this kind of research. As the first volume to focus on ethical issues associated with human challenge studies, it sets the agenda for further work in this important area of global health research; contributes to current debates in research ethics; and aims to inform regulatory policy and research practice. Insofar as it focuses on HCS in (endemic) settings where diseases are present and/or widespread, much of the analysis provided here is directly relevant to HCS involving pandemic diseases including COVID19

Professionalization as a governance strategy for synthetic biology

This article considers professionalization as a governance strategy for synthetic biology, reporting on social science interviews done with scientists, science journal editors, members of science advisory boards and authors of nongovernmental policy reports on synthetic biology. After summarizing their observations about the potential advantages and disadvantages of the professionalization of synthetic biology, we analyze professionalization as a strategy that overcomes dichotomies found in the current debates about synthetic biology governance, specifically “top down” versus “bottom up” governance and scientific fact versus public values. Professionalization combines community and state, fact and value. Like all governance options, professionalization has limitations, particularly regarding war and peace. It is best conceptualized as potentially part of a wider range of governance mechanisms working in concert: a “web of prevention”

Reconciling Regulation with Scientific Autonomy in Dual-Use Research

In debates over the regulation of communication related to dual-use research, the risks that such communication creates must be weighed against against the value of scientific autonomy. The censorship of such communication seems justifiable in certain cases, given the potentially catastrophic applications of some dual-use research. This conclusion however, gives rise to another kind of danger: that regulators will use overly simplistic cost-benefit analysis to rationalize excessive regulation of scientific research. In response to this, we show how institutional design principles and normative frameworks from free speech theory can be used to help extend the argument for regulating dangerous dual-use research beyond overly simplistic cost-benefit reasoning, but without reverting to an implausibly absolutist view of scientific autonomy

Between Scylla and Charybdis: reconciling competing data management demands in the life sciences

Background: The widespread sharing of biological and biomedical data is recognised as a key element in facilitating translation of scientific discoveries into novel clinical applications and services. At the same time, twenty-first century states are increasingly concerned that this data could also be used for purposes of bioterrorism. There is thus a tension between the desire to promote the sharing of data, as encapsulated by the Open Data movement, and the desire to prevent this data from ‘falling into the wrong hands’ as represented by ‘dual use’ policies. Both frameworks posit a moral duty for life sciences researchers with respect to how they should make their data available. However, Open data and dual use concerns are rarely discussed in concert and their implementation can present scientists with potentially conflicting ethical requirements. Discussion: Both dual use and Open data policies frame scientific data and data dissemination in particular, though different, ways. As such they contain implicit models for how data is translated. Both approaches are limited by a focus on abstract conceptions of data and data sharing. This works to impede consensus-building between the two ethical frameworks. As an alternative, this paper proposes that an ethics of responsible management of scientific data should be based on a more nuanced understanding of the everyday data practices of life scientists. Responsibility for these ‘micromovements’ of data must consider the needs and duties of scientists as individuals and as collectively-organised groups. Summary: Researchers in the life sciences are faced with conflicting ethical responsibilities to share data as widely as possible, but prevent it being used for bioterrorist purposes. In order to reconcile the responsibilities posed by the Open Data and dual use frameworks, approaches should focus more on the everyday practices of laboratory scientists and less on abstract conceptions of data

Governance of dual-use research: an ethical dilemma

Scenarios where the results of well-intentioned scientific research can be used for both good and harmful purposes give rise to what is now widely known as the “dual-use dilemma”. There has been growing debate about the dual-use nature of life science research with implications for making biological weapons. This paper reviews several controversial publications that have been the focus of debates about dual-use life science research and critically examines relevant policy developments, particularly in the United States of America. Though the dual-use dilemma is inherently ethical in nature, the majority of debates about dual-use research have primarily involved science and security experts rather than ethicists. It is important that there is more ethical input into debates about the governance of dual-use research

¿El aborto para la prevención de las imperfecciones humanas? : aborto eugenésico, incertidumbres morales y consecuencias sociales

De los últimos avances conseguidos en genética, es probable que llegue una proliferación de pruebas genéticas prenatales y esto invita a la reconsideración del estatus moral del aborto. En este artículo examino argumentos sobre el estatus moral del feto. Concluyo que la filosofía secular debe admitir que el estatus moral del feto es incierto y que esta incertidumbre hace del aborto una cuestión moralmente problemática. Aunque esto no implica que el aborto sea moralmente incorrecto o que deba ser prohibido por ley, sí recomienda una presunción moral a favor de conservar la vida fetal excepto en circunstancias especiales. Una preocupación relevante es que el aumento del aborto eugenésico da nueva fuerza a argumentos en terreno resbaladizo que predicen que llegaremos a una situación donde hay más interrupciones (de embarazo) por razones relativamente triviales y que esto promoverá otras consecuencias sociales negativas. Esto puede justificar una legislación contra ciertas intervenciones genéticas

Gain-of-Function Research:Ethical Analysis

Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures. Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research (GOFR) can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. In 2014 the administration of US President Barack Obama called for a “pause” on funding (and relevant research with existing US Government funding) of GOF experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in particular. With announcement of this pause, the US Government launched a “deliberative process” regarding risks and benefits of GOFR to inform future funding decisions—and the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) was tasked with making recommendations to the US Government on this matter. As part of this deliberative process the National Institutes of Health commissioned this Ethical Analysis White Paper, requesting that it provide (1) review and summary of ethical literature on GOFR, (2) identification and analysis of existing ethical and decision-making frameworks relevant to (i) the evaluation of risks and benefits of GOFR, (ii) decision-making about the conduct of GOF studies, and (iii) the development of US policy regarding GOFR (especially with respect to funding of GOFR), and (3) development of an ethical and decision-making framework that may be considered by NSABB when analyzing information provided by GOFR risk-benefit assessment, and when crafting its final recommendations (especially regarding policy decisions about funding of GOFR in particular). The ethical and decision-making framework ultimately developed is based on the idea that there are numerous ethically relevant dimensions upon which any given case of GOFR can fare better or worse (as opposed to there being necessary conditions that are either satisfied or not satisfied, where all must be satisfied in order for a given case of GOFR to be considered ethically acceptable): research imperative, proportionality, minimization of risks, manageability of risks, justice, good governance (i.e., democracy), evidence, and international outlook and engagement. Rather than drawing a sharp bright line between GOFR studies that are ethically acceptable and those that are ethically unacceptable, this framework is designed to indicate where any given study would fall on an ethical spectrum—where imaginable cases of GOFR might range from those that are most ethically acceptable (perhaps even ethically praiseworthy or ethically obligatory), at one end of the spectrum, to those that are most ethically problematic or unacceptable (and thus should not be funded, or conducted), at the other. The aim should be that any GOFR pursued (and/or funded) should be as far as possible towards the former end of the spectrum