A Framework for Reviewing Dual Use Research

Abstract

Dual use research' is research with results that can potentially cause harm as well as benefits. Harm can be to people, animals or the environment. For most research, harms can be difficult to predict and quantify, so in this sense almost all research could be seen as having dual use potential. This chapter will present a framework for reviewing dual use research by justifying why the responsibility for approving and conducting research does not sit with Research Ethics Committees (RECs) alone. By mapping out the wider research landscape, it will be argued that both responsibility and accountability for dual use research sits on the shoulders of broader governance structures that reflect the philosophical and political aspirations of society as a whole. RECs are certainly still important for identifying potential 'dual use research of concern', and perhaps teasing out some of the details that may be hidden within research plans or projects, but in a well-functioning system should never be the sole gate keepers that determine which research should, and should not, be allowed to proceed.

Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved

“…Systems and processes designed to ensure research, and researcher, accountability must be agile and evolve in parallel with emerging methodology and technology. The review of research projects by Research Ethics Committees (RECs), also known as Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in some countries, is one important element of ensuring research accountability [ 1 ]. There is an increasing literature that critically examines the activities of RECs by considering issues such as consistency [ 2 ], the overall reviewing remit of committees [ 3 ], and how they integrate with research governance activities [ 4 ].…”