Education and Ethics in the Life Sciences: Strengthening the Prohibition of Biological Weapons

Rappert, Brian

doi:10.26530/oapen_459095

Cited by 10 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Among them, changing social attitudes clearly affect how science is carried out 1 . What scientists “should” do thus comes from norms of professional behavior as much, or in some cases perhaps more, as from legal requirements (8). It also allows scientific engagement on biosecurity to take advantage of the international attention to issues of research integrity and responsible conduct of science.…”

Section: Approaches To Engagement: Framing the Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibilities or Requirements: Framing Dual Use Issues for Scientific Engagement

Husbands

2014

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Approaches To Engagement: Framing the Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsibilities or Requirements: Framing Dual Use Issues for Scientific Engagement

Husbands

2014

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Indeed, as is noted in Education and Ethics in the Life Sciences (Rappert 2010), the emergence of a consensus about awareness-raising and education had developed at the 2008 Meeting of the States Parties which considered: 26. …the importance of ensuring that those working in the biological sciences are aware of their obligations under the Convention and relevant national legislation and guidelines, have a clear understanding of the content, purpose and foreseeable social, environmental, health and security consequences of their activities, and are encouraged to take an active role in addressing the threats posed by potential misuse of biological agents and toxins as weapons, including bioterrorism.…”

Section: Biosafety Biosecurity and Internationally Mandated Regulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biosafety, biosecurity and internationally mandated regulatory regimes: compliance mechanisms for education and global health security

Sture¹,

Whitby²,

Perkins³

2013

Medicine, Conflict and Survival

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper highlights the biosafety and biosecurity training obligations that three international regulatory regimes place upon states parties. The duty to report upon the existence of such provisions as evidence of compliance is discussed in relation to each regime. We argue that such mechanisms can be regarded as building blocks for the development and delivery of complementary biosafety and biosecurity teaching and training materials. We show that such building blocks represent foundations upon which life and associated scientists -through greater awareness of biosecurity concerns -can better fulfil their responsibilities to guard their work from misuse in the future.

show abstract

“…If, instead, discussions were liberated from the strict focus on bioterrorism it is possible that this idea could be linked to other interpretations of misuse and misapplication. As suggested by Brian Rappert, “weapons of mass disruption”, instead of “weapons of mass destruction” may be an alternative means of visualizing the products of dual-use events (Rappert 2010: 13).…”

Section: Observations From Empirical Fieldwork: Understanding the Devmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moving Life Science Ethics Debates Beyond National Borders: Some Empirical Observations

Bezuidenhout

2013

Sci Eng Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The life sciences are increasingly being called on to produce "socially robust" knowledge that honors the social contract between science and society. This has resulted in the emergence of a number of "broad social issues" that reflect the ethical tensions in these social contracts. These issues are framed in a variety of ways around the world, evidenced by differences in regulations addressing them. It is important to question whether these variations are simply regulatory variations or in fact reflect a contextual approach to ethics that brings into question the existence of a system of "global scientific ethics". Nonetheless, within ethics education for scientists these broad social issues are often presented using this scheme of global ethics due to legacies of science ethics pedagogy. This paper suggests this may present barriers to fostering international discourse between communities of scientists, and may cause difficulties in harmonizing (and transporting) national regulations for the governance of these issues. Reinterpreting these variations according to how the content of ethical principles is attributed by communities is proposed as crucial for developing a robust international discourse. To illustrate this, the paper offers some empirical fieldwork data that considers how the concept of dual-use (as a broad social issue) was discussed within African and UK laboratories. Demonstrating that African scientists reshaped the concept of dual-use according to their own research environmental pressures and ascribed alternative content to the principles that underpin it, suggests that the limitations of a "global scientific ethics" system for these issues cannot be ignored.

show abstract

Education and Ethics in the Life Sciences: Strengthening the Prohibition of Biological Weapons

Cited by 10 publications

References 9 publications

Responsibilities or Requirements: Framing Dual Use Issues for Scientific Engagement

Responsibilities or Requirements: Framing Dual Use Issues for Scientific Engagement

Biosafety, biosecurity and internationally mandated regulatory regimes: compliance mechanisms for education and global health security

Moving Life Science Ethics Debates Beyond National Borders: Some Empirical Observations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About