David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):85-97 (2010)
Israel has a long history of concern with chemical and biological threats, since several hostile states in the Middle East are likely to possess such weapons. The Twin-Tower terrorist attacks and Anthrax envelope scares of 2001 were a watershed for public perceptions of the threat of unconventional terror in general and of biological terror in particular. New advances in biotechnology will only increase the ability of terrorists to exploit the burgeoning availability of related information to develop ever-more destructive bioweapons. Many areas of modern biological research are unavoidably dual-use by nature. They thus have a great potential for both help and harm; and facilitating the former while preventing the latter remains a serious challenge to researchers and governments alike. This article addresses how Israel might best (1) prevent hostile elements from obtaining, from Israel’s biological research system, materials, information and technologies that might facilitate their carrying out a biological attack, while (2) continuing to promote academic openness, excellence and other hallmarks of that system. This important and sensitive issue was assessed by a special national committee, and their recommendations are presented and discussed. One particularly innovative element is the restructuring and use of Israel’s extensive biosafety system to also address biosecurity goals, with minimal disruption or delay.
|Keywords||Biosecurity Bioterror Dual-use Biosafety Academic freedom/responsibility Recommendations|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Sławomir Letkiewicz & Andrzej Górski (2010). The Potential Dual Use of Online Pharmacies. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):59-75.
Similar books and articles
Adolph Portmann (1990). On the Uniqueness of Biological Research. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 15 (5):457-472.
Koos van der Bruggen (2012). Possibilities, Intentions and Threats: Dual Use in the Life Sciences Reconsidered. Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (4):741-756.
Brian Rappert (2003). Coding Ethical Behaviour: The Challenges of Biological Weapons. Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (4):453-470.
Emanuel Gross (2002). Self-Defense Against Terrorism--What Does It Mean? The Israeli Perspective. Journal of Military Ethics 1 (2):91-108.
Lalit Kant & D. T. Mourya (2010). Managing Dual Use Technology: It Takes Two to Tango. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):77-83.
Thomas May (2005). Funding Agendas: Has Bioterror Defense Been Over-Prioritized? American Journal of Bioethics 5 (4):34 – 44.
Frida Kuhlau, Anna T. Höglund, Kathinka Evers & Stefan Eriksson (2011). A Precautionary Principle for Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences. Bioethics 25 (1):1-8.
Seumas Miller & Michael J. Selgelid (2007). Ethical and Philosophical Consideration of the Dual-Use Dilemma in the Biological Sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):523-580.
Frida Kuhlau, Stefan Eriksson, Kathinka Evers & Anna T. Höglund (2008). Taking Due Care: Moral Obligations in Dual Use Research. Bioethics 22 (9):477-487.
Marek Czarkowski (2010). The Dilemma of Dual Use Biological Research: Polish Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics 16 (1):99-110.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #123,217 of 1,102,630 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #298,160 of 1,102,630 )
How can I increase my downloads?