This article argues that due to the difficulty in governing AI, it is essential to develop measures implemented early in the AI research process. The goal of dual use considerations is to create robust strategies that uphold AI’s integrity while protecting societal interests. The challenges of applying dual use frameworks to AI research are examined and dual use and dual use research of concern (DURC) are defined while highlighting the difficulties in balancing the technology’s benefits and risks. AI’s dual use (...) potential is discussed, particularly in areas like NLP and LLMs, and the need for early consideration of dual use risks to ensure ethical and secure development is underscored. In the section on shared responsibilities in AI research and avenues for mitigation strategies the importance of early-stage risk assessments and ethical guidelines to mitigate misuse is emphasized, accentuating self-governance within scientific communities and structured measures like checklists and pre-registration to promote responsible research practices. The final section argues that research ethics committees play a crucial role in evaluating the dual use implications of AI technologies within the research pipeline. The need for tailored ethics review processes is articulated, drawing parallels with medical research ethics committees. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to explore whether and how the concept of dual-use can be applied to philosophical research, as well as its potential for explaining cases of misuse of philosophical theory and for justifying any restrictions on academic freedom. I argue that there are two ways in which philosophical research can be misused: by using its methods for purposes that contradict the general purposes of philosophy, and by using (parts of) a theory against the purposes intended by (...) its author. Philosophical research is dual-use research of concern (DURC) if the theory can be misused without modification, which is the case when a theory is not entirely conclusive. The misuse of philosophical research differs from the misuse in paradigmatic cases of DURC in that its potential to cause harm depends on social conditions. Given these conditions and the lack of relevant research, the risk of harmful misuse of philosophy as of yet does not constitute a sufficient reason to restrict academic freedom in a meaningful way. Instead, researchers should be aware of any potential for misuse, make their arguments as conclusive as possible, and emphasise the aim of their theory. To prevent harmful misuse in the public sphere, scholars should engage in public philosophy and provide an accurate and conclusive account of their research. Institutions should support this. (shrink)

The problem of dual use is characterized by a wide range of activities or types of research and technology utilization. In this article, I explore the phenomenon of dual use in several steps to make it accessible for ethical inquiries: first, I examine the phenomenon in more detail; is it a genuine property of technologies and methods, a fundamental problem for research ethics, or a specific precondition for trade-off situations? Second, I show that various factors contribute to a certain good (...) becoming a real dual use good. Third, I propose to develop a three-dimensional classification and evaluation system for dual use risks. (shrink)

An increasing number of research fields must expect that their projects will be classified as susceptible to misuse or otherwise security relevant, even if the reasons or criteria for this classification have not yet been uniformly developed. Research institutions will commonly distribute the obligation to predict and prevent misuse across multiple members and structures including ethics committees. However, cases of misuse occur even in spite of these precautions, raising the question of the type and distribution of responsibility for the resulting (...) harm. This question becomes even more pressing if research ethics committees in their decisions ask researchers to provide a misuse- specific risk assessment or risk mitigation plan and thereby shift back a part of their responsibility on the researchers. While this kind of requirement may be considered as unsatisfactory by researchers, members of research ethics committees or boards and third-party funders, will argue that it fulfils two important functions. On the one hand, it makes use of the best available source for misuse risk-assessment available to most committees; on the other hand, it guarantees that the researchers at least try to take responsibility. If researchers, committee members and others involved discharge their obligation to predict and mitigate misuse risks with due diligence, any backward-looking responsibility they retain is to show agent regret for the results of their work having been misused. (shrink)

With regard to the handling of dual use research, the dominant approach in Germany aimed at mitigating dual use risks emphasizes the freedom of research and the strengthening of academic self-regulation. This article presents this approach as one example for a framework for handling security-relevant research, underlines the need for awareness-raising about risks of security-relevant research, and, more generally, highlights some of the dilemmas researchers and legislators face when dealing with security-relevant research. The article furthermore presents the key questions developed (...) by the German Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research to provide guidance for researchers and institutions when they address possible research of concern. It applies these key questions in a case study of a well-publicized experiment in which artificial intelligence and drug discovery technologies were used to determine their dual use potential in identifying highly toxic chemical substances. Moreover, it discusses the utility of the framework applied in Germany and concludes that this approach is practicable. Given the strong emphasis on the researchers’ own responsibility, however, awareness of dual use risks and risk mitigation strategies should be further enhanced and an academic culture of responsible handling of security-relevant research should be promoted. (shrink)

Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) has been well analyzed regarding the life sciences. This article explores the topic of younger fields of medical research and their potential for misuse, especially in the military context. The areas of research considered are artificial intelligence, neurotechnology, and neuroenhancement. Each of these areas have brought forward highly promising new research. However, in light of the current armed conflicts in Europe and in the Middle East, there is a need to consider what the potential (...) harmful consequences of medical research are. Using the example of war, this article demonstrates various instances of how current medical research could be—or is being—misused and discusses various possible solutions to the dual use dilemma. The main finding is that there needs to be a more concise and international effort to prevent the misuse of research. The raising of awareness in the general medical research community for the topic of DURC is one of the simplest steps that should be undertaken in order to ensure the non-maleficence of global research. Additionally, considering the potentially far-reaching consequences of DURC, it is time to consider the introduction of a new intergovernmental agency to monitor research and establish safeguards in order to cover all fields of research. (shrink)

Biomedical research, on the one hand, contributes to important goals from generation of knowledge about the human body to the development and testing of therapeutics of all kinds. On the other hand, it can produce serious and sometimes unforeseeable consequences. In the ethical analysis of these two aspects of biomedical research, two important argumentative strategies play a major role. First, slippery slope arguments are used to warn of potential risks and to highlight knowledge-based limitations. Second, a dual-use problem describes the (...) challenge that already established techniques can be used for both morally wrong and morally right purposes. These two argumentative strategies appear to share several similarities, which will be investigated in this article. For this purpose, the article will first provide clear working definitions for both types of argument. This lays the foundation for the further ethical analysis. In a second step, and in order to investigate the similarities and differences of the argumentative strategies with an example from current ethical debates, CRISPR-Cas9, a currently very promising tool of genome editing, will be examined. The extent to which the possible applications of this genome editing tool can be addressed by slippery slope arguments or the dual use problem will be investigated. For this purpose, selected studies involving the use of CRISPR-Cas9 will be examined. Based on this two-step, analytic and example-based comparison of slippery-slope argumentation and dual-use considerations, the article will detail the ethically relevant difference between the two argumentative strategies and at the same time contribute to the ongoing ethical debate about CRISPR-Cas9. (shrink)

This article addresses the question of how the responsibilities for addressing the risks of dual use research ought to be divided. We begin by presenting the maximalist claim that proposes that since scientists are well placed to judge the potential for misuse of their studies, they alone are responsible for addressing these risks. Before assessing this position, we consider a claim that rejects the maximalist position, namely that scientists need not consider the possibility that their studies might be misused because (...) the goods of science are so important, they should not spend time on anything but generating valuable knowledge. This claim, we argue, fails, as these goods do not always outweigh the risks of misuse. Given this conclusion we turn to assess two versions of the maximalist claim. The first suggests that when a possibility of misuse arises, scientists ought to adopt the precautionary principle (PP) to discharge their moral responsibilities. We argue that PP is problematic as it does not give much guidance on what scientists should do. An alternative to meeting scientists’ moral responsibilities is through applying a risk-benefit analysis; however, due to epistemic biases and limitations, scientists are prone to make mistakes in their analysis. We thus suggest an alternative approach, in which responsibilities are divided between scientists and agents that can conduct an analysis that is more likely to generate unbiased and comprehensive conclusions on how the risks of dual use research, should be addressed. (shrink)

Artificial placentas (APs) are technologies that mimic the human placenta to treat extremely preterm infants. Being an invasive and risky technology, it will raise important ethical questions for human trials. Hence, in this Topic Piece we provide a blueprint of further issues to investigate. First, counselling will have the double role of providing trial information as well as (non) treatment counselling. This requires extra training and the development of ad hoc decision aids to support counselling and parents’ decision-making. Second, more (...) stakeholder involvement is needed. Direct stakeholders, such as parents, clinicians, and researchers, can help develop the decision aids and provide insight on potentially overlooked issues. Society should also be involved to determine whether AP trials and implementation should be subsidized, and the ethical implications of not subsidizing. Third, a proper cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to determine the exact cost of the technology. (shrink)

Journals and publishers are increasingly using artificial intelligence (AI) to screen submissions for potential misconduct, including plagiarism and data or image manipulation. While using AI can enhance the integrity of published manuscripts, it can also increase the risk of false/unsubstantiated allegations. Ambiguities related to journals’ and publishers’ responsibilities concerning fairness and transparency also raise ethical concerns. In this Topic Piece, we offer the following guidance: (1) All cases of suspected misconduct identified by AI tools should be carefully reviewed by humans (...) to verify accuracy and ensure accountability; (2) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should use only well-tested and reliable tools, remain vigilant concerning forms of misconduct that cannot be detected by these tools, and stay abreast of advancements in technology; (3) Journals/publishers should inform authors about irregularities identified by AI tools and give them a chance to respond before forwarding allegations to their institutions in accordance with Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines; (4) Journals/publishers that use AI tools to detect misconduct should screen all relevant submissions and not just random/purposefully selected submissions; and (5) Journals should inform authors about their definition of misconduct, their use of AI tools to detect misconduct, and their policies and procedures for responding to suspected cases of misconduct. (shrink)

Student researchers encounter ethical issues daily, but little is known about their unique perspectives. This article presents the results of 30 qualitative semi-structured interviews exploring students’ views and experiences around ethical issues in research groups. During the interviews, students were asked to describe challenges and successes they have encountered in their lab, their conception of what counts as an “ethical issue in research,” and how they handle these issues when they arise. Against this background, the article discusses students’ conceptions of (...) ethical issues in research environments, the types of issues students reported facing, how these issues were ultimately resolved, and finally, the factors, internal qualities, and lessons learned that help students thrive in research environments, as well as some of the challenges students face – especially international students. Many of the ethical challenges interviewees discussed focused on interpersonal issues, highlighting the intense collaboration most graduate students have with their colleagues and supervisors. Findings from this study point to the need for targeted training programs for students and faculty supervisors focusing on building mentoring relationships and finding space in the lab where open communication can occur around ethical research practices. (shrink)

Dynamic consent is increasingly recommended for longitudinal and biobanking research; however, the value of investing in such systems is unclear. We undertook a rapid review of the benefits and challenges of implementing dynamic consent by searching five databases (Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature – CINAHL) for articles published up to May 2023 that report on participants’ or researchers’ experience of dynamic consent. From 1611 papers screened, 12 met inclusion criteria. (...) Guided by thematic analysis with an inductive approach, we synthesised 31 benefits and 8 challenges. Benefits included: enhanced participant experience through improved consent management and tailoring; greater participant engagement and retention through increased autonomy, trust and communication; reduced costs and burden and increased accessibility and inclusivity. Participants and researchers also valued additional features that dynamic consent platforms facilitate such as two-way communication and return of research updates. The main challenges included the digital divide and consent fatigue. The papers gave recommendations to mitigate these challenges, for example by supplementing with other communication tools and allowing a broad consent approach, respectively. Overall, dynamic consent was described as a valuable consent approach with many benefits and some surmountable challenges. Most included literature was qualitative, so further research is needed to quantify the impact of dynamic consent on recruitment, retention, and participant experience. Further long-term investigations are necessary to explore whether participants want to and do change their consent over time, as well as the impact of dynamic consent on participant privacy. (shrink)

Reporting and investigating research misconduct can lead to disciplinary proceedings being initiated, and ultimately to disciplinary sanctions being imposed on convicted scientists. The conversion of research misconduct findings into disciplinary sanctions is poorly understood. This article analyses all the disciplinary decisions handed down on appeal by the Conseil national de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche (CNESER) between 1991 and 2023, concerning breaches of research integrity by academics and doctoral students ( n = 333). Three findings are highlighted. Firstly, the (...) article describes how the CNESER sanctioned research misconduct even before the notion of research integrity became part of French law, by monitoring scientists’ compliance with “deontological rules”. Secondly, we show that assessing disciplinary fault involves evaluating a much broader set of circumstances than the mere existence of research misconduct, which can explain why the latter do not result in disciplinary sanctions or lighter sanctions. Thirdly, the research highlights situations where research misconduct is intertwined with other allegations, blurring the relative importance of these motives in the awarding of disciplinary sanctions. The article concludes with a call for greater accessibility to the disciplinary decisions handed down by universities in the first instance, as a key next step in gaining a better understanding of the disciplinary response to research misconduct. (shrink)

The Joint Research Centre (JRC) is the European Commission’s in-house science and knowledge service, employing a substantial staff of scientists devoted to conducting research to provide independent scientific advice for EU policy. Focussed on various research areas aligned with EU priorities, the JRC excels in delivering scientific evidence for policymaking and has published numerous science-for-policy reports and scientific articles. Drawing on a scientific integrity statement, surveys among JRC’s research staff, and thematic discussions with JRC’s research leaders, the JRC has developed (...) a comprehensive Scientific Integrity and Research Ethics (SIRE) framework, including instruments, procedures, and guidelines to ensure high standards and independence in its research. Key components of the SIRE framework include a Scientific Integrity Officer, an Editorial Review Board, a Research Ethics Board, and guidelines for responsible conduct of research. This article provides an overview of the JRC’s SIRE framework and how it was developed, emphasising the importance of maintaining independence, integrity, and ethics in scientific research that supports EU policy. The article also discusses potential gaps in the framework and where additional efforts may be needed, comparing with the recent U.S. National Science and Technology Council report on Protecting the Integrity of Government Science. (shrink)

The increasing need for innovative research driven by rapid global changes gives doctoral supervisors of early-stage researchers a significant role in facilitating the ethical conduct of qualitative research. In the context of European Commission funding, the demands of research ethics and integrity place a tremendous responsibility on the supervisors of early-stage researchers involved in cross-national projects. This document study seeks to illuminate the role of the supervisors in facilitating research ethics in these projects. Specifically, we describe and discuss the supervisor (...) role associated with five approaches to doctoral supervision of qualitative research, namely those described as ‘Functional’, ‘Enculturation’, ‘Critical thinking’, ‘Emancipation’ and ‘Developing a quality relationship’. The main challenges for supervisors of cross-national research projects are the cultural and linguistic mobilisation of ethical principles in qualitative research processes and the management of the future use of open data. The results from this study have implications for planning and conducting cross-national studies within research involving human participants. These results can guide supervisors in the codification and mobilisation of ethical qualitative research in practice. (shrink)

The COVID-19 pandemic posed many ethical and practical challenges for academic research. Some of these have been documented, particularly in relation to health research, but less attention has been paid to the dilemmas encountered by educational and social science research. Given that pandemics are predicted to be more frequent, it is vital to understand how to continue crucial research in schools and other learning communities. This article therefore focuses specifically on research ethics in educational and social science during the pandemic (...) of 2020–2022. The research involved interviews and workshops with University College London (UCL) academics, professional staff and graduate students and encompassed those involved in reviewing ethics applications, researchers dealing with ethics in projects that continued despite disruptions caused by COVID-19, and successful research projects specifically designed to study the effects of COVID-19 in various contexts. The article discusses some of the crucial knowledge and practical experiences that were accumulated. The operational and epistemological lessons learned from this particular institution may have wider relevance to research ethics processes in higher education environments where academics and students are grappling with post-COVID-19 ethical dilemmas and inform broader debates about how research institutions can build institutional knowledge to improve practices of ethics review at the times of health emergencies in future. Our evidence points to the significance of inter- and multidisciplinary, collaborative approaches that flatten institutional hierarchies and to the crucial role played by professional staff. In addition, we argue that ethics review processes must be underpinned by critical debates about wider issues of unequal power relationships between research partners, the nature of knowledge production, ownership and utilisation. To enhance equity and epistemic justice in research practices, ethics education should be an ongoing integral part of research ethics within research institutions. (shrink)

This paper addresses the issue of how local and global norms and requirements are negotiated in the early stages of development of Social Science research ethics policy in a Global South context. A review of relevant literature followed by analysis of relevant national and institutional policies highlights both tensions and creative potential for ongoing research ethics initiatives. It was found that safety, trust and confidentiality issues are common problems reported by social science researchers in Kyrgyzstan. National level documents do not (...) directly address these ethical research issues, but the need for international research ethics principles is recognized. A limited number of institutional policies address research ethics issues, with the majority of relevant documents being codes of conduct focused on virtue ethics. The paper argues that this analysis of the current situation in Kyrgyzstan is likely to be of relevance to many countries, where those responsible for governance of research at all levels are grappling with the tensions of navigating research ethics in ways that are meaningful in local contexts while being congruent with Global North ethics requirements of funders and publishers. (shrink)

Unethical research practices are prevalent in China, but little research has focused on the causes of these practices. Drawing on the criminology literature on organisational deviance, as well as the concept of cengceng jiama, which illustrates the increase of pressure in the process of policy implementation within a top-down bureaucratic hierarchy, this article develops an institutional analysis of research misconduct in Chinese universities. It examines both universities and the policy environment of Chinese universities as contexts for research misconduct. Specifically, this (...) article focuses on China’s Double First-Class University Initiative and its impact on elite universities that respond to the policy by generating new incentive structures to promote research quality and productivity as well as granting faculties and departments greater flexibility in terms of setting high promotion criteria concerning research productivity. This generates enormous institutional tensions and strains, encouraging and sometimes even compelling individual researchers who wish to survive to decouple their daily research activities from ethical research norms. This article is written based on empirical data collected from three elite universities as well as a review of policy documents, universities’ internal documents, and news articles. (shrink)