The dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity

Abstract

BackgroundDual Use Research of Concern (DURC) constitutes a major challenge for research practice and oversight on the local, national and international level. The situation in Germany is shaped by two partly competing suggestions of how to regulate security-related research: The German Ethics Council, as an independent political advisory body, recommended a series of measures, including national legislation on DURC. Competing with that, the German National Academy of Sciences and the German Research Foundation, as two major professional bodies, presented a strategy which draws on the self-control of science and, inter alia, suggests expanding the scope of research ethics committees (RECs) to an evaluation of DURC.Main bodyThis situation is taken as an occasion to further discuss the scope and limits of professional self-control with respect to security-related research. The role of RECs as professional bodies of science is particularly analyzed, referring to the theoretical backgrounds of professionalism. Two key sociological features of professionalism – ethical orientation and professional self-control – are discussed with respect to the practice of biomedical science. Both attributes are then analyzed with respect to the assessment of DURC by RECs.ConclusionIn conclusion, it is stated that issues of biosecurity transcend the boundaries of the scientific community and that a more comprehensive strategy should be implemented encompassing both professional self-control and legal oversight.

The Ethics of Agent-Based Social Simulation

“…Given the increasing demands for holding science accountable to society (motivated, in part, by popular cases of research misconduct), science may not be able to afford the time needed for self-correction. This standardisation alternative, then, might need to be coupled with an institutional effort that provides means and mechanisms, initially, for the collective moderation of individual values, beliefs, and expectations (Fox & Braxton 1994;Freidson 2007;Iverson et al 2003) and, later, for oversight and accountability (Salloch 2018;Short & Toffel 2010;Taylor 2009). Since the second half of the twentieth century, several countries have advanced in the articulation of institutional ethics procedures that oversee and regulate behaviour based on the derivation of sets of rules from a series of universal principles e.g., justice or beneficence, that any good research practice would be expected to comply with (Israel 2020).…”

Bad Outcomes, Good Intentions: Approaching the Potential Misuse of Crime Data by Policymakers

“…It is well established that "research misuse" can arise in many different scientific fields and in many ways. To illustrate, rather than trying to be exhaustive, recent specialized discussions on this topic have been held in the field of biomedicine (Hammack et al, 2019;Salloch, 2018;Smith & Sandbrink, 2021;Murgatroyd et al, 2015), (bio-)security (Boddie et al, 2015;Koopman, 2016;Smith & Sandbrink, 2022); research methods (Kara & Pickering, 2017;Griffin et al, 2022;Wible, 2016) or, closer to this chapter, public policy (Fedina, 2015;Mandal, 2021;Matthew, 2020;Williams, 2021), just to mention a few of them.…”

Expert Perspectives on Oversight for Unregulated mHealth Research: Empirical Data and Commentary

“…In addition to regulatory oversight, these systems support researcher development and good behavior with vetted local policies, structured institutional norms, and consequences for noncompliance. 32 For unregulated researchers who work with small independent research staffs or on a research team embedded in a larger organization focused on product development, it may be difficult to find similar support. This is particularly concerning for unregulated researchers who are new to research and have little to no experience with or understanding of human subjects protections.…”