Taking Due Care: Moral Obligations in Dual Use Research
Taking Due Care: Moral Obligations in Dual Use Research
复制标题
采取应有的谨慎：双重用途研究中的道德义务
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00695.x
复制
发表时间：
2008
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Anna T. Hoglund
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Frida Kuhlau;S. Eriksson;K. Evers;Anna T. Hoglund
在过去十年中，对生物恐怖主义威胁的看法有所增加，并要求生命科学家考虑双重用途研究的潜在安全影响。本文探讨了一个选择建议的道德义务的生命科学家，已经出现，以满足这些问题，在何种程度上可以被认为是合理的。它还描述了关注的根本原因，如何管理它们，以及它们对科学价值的影响。对什么是可预防的损害提出了五项标准，并根据这些标准审议了生命科学家的一些拟议义务，即防止生物恐怖主义的义务;参与应对活动的义务;考虑研究的负面影响的义务;不公布或分享敏感信息的义务;监督和限制危险材料的获取的义务;以及报告令人关切的活动的义务。虽然生物恐怖主义可能被视为一种迫在眉睫的威胁，但分析表明，这超出了生命科学家的责任，无论是预防还是应对。较为合理的义务包括考虑研究可能产生的负面影响，保护敏感材料、技术和知识的获取，以及报告令人关切的活动。因此，责任包括与预防可预见和极有可能发生的损害有关的义务。一个核心结论是，拟议的若干义务是合理的，尽管不是无条件的。
In the past decade, the perception of a bioterrorist threat has increased and created a demand on life scientists to consider the potential security implications of dual use research. This article examines a selection of proposed moral obligations for life scientists that have emerged to meet these concerns and the extent to which they can be considered reasonable. It also describes the underlying reasons for the concerns, how they are managed, and their implications for scientific values. Five criteria for what constitutes preventable harm are suggested and a number of proposed obligations for life scientists are considered against these criteria, namely, the obligations to prevent bioterrorism; to engage in response activities; to consider negative implications of research; not to publish or share sensitive information; to oversee and limit access to dangerous material; and to report activities of concern. Although bioterrorism might be perceived as an imminent threat, the analysis illustrates that this is beyond the responsibility of life scientists either to prevent or to respond to. Among the more reasonable obligations are duties to consider potential negative implications of one's research, protect access to sensitive material, technology and knowledge, and report activities of concern. Responsibility, therefore, includes obligations concerned with preventing foreseeable and highly probable harm. A central conclusion is that several of the proposed obligations are reasonable, although not unconditionally.