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

Rappert, Brian; Selgelid, Michael J.

doi:10.22459/duse.12.2013

2013

DOI: 10.22459/duse.12.2013

|View full text |Cite

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

Brian Rappert

Michael J. Selgelid²

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2018

2020

Publication Types

Select...

Book2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There isn't even agreement on whether there should be more. While some are alarmed by the paucity of bioethicists working in the field of dual-use biotechnology(Rappert & Selgelid 2013), others argue the professionalization of bioethics removes important discussions from public debate(Cameron & Caplan 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Benefits of Research

2020

Dangerous Science Science: Policy and Risk Analysis for Scientists and Engineers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Writing a book requires a substantial time commitment, and I would like to thank my family for their patience. It also requires resources, and I would like to thank Stony Brook University and the Department of Technology and Society in particular for its support. Thanks also goes out to David Tonjes for his helpful advice and Scott Ferson for his gracious support and instructive discussions regarding the nature of risk and the measurement of uncertainty. I must also express my deep gratitude to the late David Ferguson, instrumental in my academic career, who imparted kindness and wisdom in equal measure. Finally, I would like to thank Sheldon Reaven for our numerous conversations on the philosophy of science, science policy, and opera. The value of his insightful comments has been exceeded only by the value of his friendship. This book has also benefitted from the insightful peer review comments provided by Professor Frederic Emmanuel Bouder. Case Study: H5N1 Influenza Research Debate Media coverage of the latest scientific discoveries and technological innovations is usually enthusiastic. Long-standing questions are answered, productivity is increased, health is improved, and our standard of living is raised-all due to modern science and human ingenuity. However, sometimes the results of research can also inspire public fear and outrage. Let us consider a recent example. In September 2011, Dutch virologist Ron Fouchier announced at a conference in Malta that his research team had recently engineered a version of the H5N1 1 avian influenza virus that was highly transmissible between mammals. Shortly thereafter, virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin presented results from a similar study. The subsequent media coverage scared the general public and set off demands for a review of how science research is assessed, funded, and managed. Why would these studies be so scary? The reason centers on the lethal potential of influenza and the H5N1 virus in particular. An influenza pandemic typically occurs when a flu virus substantially different from circulating viruses mutates to become easily transmissible between humans. The combination of 1 The formal naming convention for influenza viruses includes the antigenic type (A, B, or C); the originating host (e.g., swine); the geographical origin; year of identification; strain number; or for type A viruses, the specific subtypes of two surface proteins, hemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) (e.g., H5N1) (Assaad et al. 1980). Given the complexity of formal names, popular shorthand names, such as Spanish flu, Swine flu, and H1N1 can potentially be referring to the same influenza virus. The World Health Organization has been working to improve shorthand names to make them less stigmatizing and more informative.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Benefits of Research

2020

Dangerous Science Science: Policy and Risk Analysis for Scientists and Engineers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Concept of Dual Use

Miller

2018

Dual Use Science and Technology, Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

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

Cited by 2 publications

References 1 publication

Assessing the Benefits of Research

Assessing the Benefits of Research

Concept of Dual Use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About