Bioethics 25 (1):1-8 (2011)
Most life science research entails dual-use complexity and may be misused for harmful purposes, e.g. biological weapons. The Precautionary Principle applies to special problems characterized by complexity in the relationship between human activities and their consequences. This article examines whether the principle, so far mainly used in environmental and public health issues, is applicable and suitable to the field of dual-use life science research. Four central elements of the principle are examined: threat, uncertainty, prescription and action. Although charges against the principle exist – for example that it stifles scientific development, lacks practical applicability and is poorly defined and vague – the analysis concludes that a Precautionary Principle is applicable to the field. Certain factors such as credibility of the threat, availability of information, clear prescriptive demands on responsibility and directives on how to act, determine the suitability and success of a Precautionary Principle. Moreover, policy-makers and researchers share a responsibility for providing and seeking information about potential sources of harm. A central conclusion is that the principle is meaningful and useful if applied as a context-dependent moral principle and allowed flexibility in its practical use. The principle may then inspire awareness-raising and the establishment of practical routines which appropriately reflect the fact that life science research may be misused for harmful purposes
|Keywords||life science research precautionary principle responsibility dual use biological weapons|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Beyond Patchwork Precaution in the Dual-Use Governance of Synthetic Biology.Alexander Kelle - 2013 - Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):1121-1139.
Is the Precautionary Principle Adaptable to Emergency Scenarios to Speed Up Research, Risking the Individual Informed Consent?Margarita Gonzalvo-Cirac, María Victoria Roqué, Ferran Fuertes, Mauricio Pacheco & Ignacio Segarra - 2013 - American Journal of Bioethics 13 (9):17-19.
Four Themes in Recent Swedish Bioethics Debates.Gert Helgesson & Stefan Eriksson - 2011 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (3):409-417.
Dual Use Research: Investigation Across Multiple Science Disciplines.Shannon Oltmann - 2015 - Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (2):327-341.
The Concept of Governance in Dual-Use Research.Alex Dubov - 2014 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 17 (3):447-457.
Similar books and articles
Learning From the Law to Address Uncertainty in the Precautionary Principle.Carl F. Cranor - 2001 - Science and Engineering Ethics 7 (3):313-326.
"If You Don't Know How to Fix It, Please Stop Breaking It!" The Precautionary Principle and Climate Change.Philippe H. Martin - 1997 - Foundations of Science 2 (2):263-292.
Future Technologies, Dystopic Futures and the Precautionary Principle.Steve Clarke - 2005 - Ethics and Information Technology 7 (3):121-126.
A Core Precautionary Principle.Stephen M. Gardiner - 2006 - Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (1):33–60.
How Not to Criticize the Precautionary Principle.Jonathan Hughes - 2006 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (5):447 – 464.
The Precautionary Principle in Nanotechnology.James Moor - 2006 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (2):191-204.
What's the Harm? An Evolutionary Theoretical Critique of the Precautionary Principle.Russell Powell - 2010 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (2):181-206.
Is the Precautionary Principle Unscientific?B. D. - 2003 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 34 (2):329-344.
Added to index2009-07-09
Total downloads24 ( #208,368 of 2,157,998 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #359,001 of 2,157,998 )
How can I increase my downloads?