Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):923-964 (2016)

Authors
Michael Selgelid
Monash University
Abstract
Gain-of-function research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures. Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. In 2014 the administration of US President Barack Obama called for a “pause” on funding of GOF experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in particular. With announcement of this pause, the US Government launched a “deliberative process” regarding risks and benefits of GOFR to inform future funding decisions—and the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity was tasked with making recommendations to the US Government on this matter. As part of this deliberative process the National Institutes of Health commissioned this Ethical Analysis White Paper, requesting that it provide review and summary of ethical literature on GOFR, identification and analysis of existing ethical and decision-making frameworks relevant to the evaluation of risks and benefits of GOFR, decision-making about the conduct of GOF studies, and the development of US policy regarding GOFR, and development of an ethical and decision-making framework that may be considered by NSABB when analyzing information provided by GOFR risk-benefit assessment, and when crafting its final recommendations. The ethical and decision-making framework ultimately developed is based on the idea that there are numerous ethically relevant dimensions upon which any given case of GOFR can fare better or worse : research imperative, proportionality, minimization of risks, manageability of risks, justice, good governance, evidence, and international outlook and engagement. Rather than drawing a sharp bright line between GOFR studies that are ethically acceptable and those that are ethically unacceptable, this framework is designed to indicate where any given study would fall on an ethical spectrum—where imaginable cases of GOFR might range from those that are most ethically acceptable, at one end of the spectrum, to those that are most ethically problematic or unacceptable, at the other. The aim should be that any GOFR pursued should be as far as possible towards the former end of the spectrum.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s11948-016-9810-1
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,319
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Principles of Biomedical Ethics.Tom L. Beauchamp - 1979 - Oxford University Press.
Science, Truth, and Democracy.Philip Kitcher - 2001 - Oxford University Press.
Science, Truth, and Democracy.A. Bird - 2003 - Mind 112 (448):746-749.
Ethical Criteria of Risk Acceptance.Sven Ove Hansson - 2003 - Erkenntnis 59 (3):291 - 309.

View all 18 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

The Social Risks of Science.Jonathan Herington & Scott Tanona - 2020 - Hastings Center Report 50 (6):27-38.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ethical Decision Making: Special or No Different? [REVIEW]Dawn R. Elm & Tara J. Radin - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 107 (3):313-329.
Ethical Aspects of Human Subject Research in Biomedicine.David Bruce Fletcher - 1984 - Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Understanding Risks and Benefits in Research on Reproductive Genetic Technologies.Janet Malek - 2007 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 32 (4):339 – 358.
The Ethical Problems of the Open Label Extension Study.Kenneth Craig Micetich - 1996 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 5 (3):410.
Six Challenges for Ethical Conduct in Science.Petteri Niemi - 2016 - Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):1007-1025.
What We Worry About When We Worry About the Ethics of Clinical Research.David Wendler - 2011 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (3):161-180.
Risk-Benefit Analysis: From a Logical Point of View. [REVIEW]Georg Spielthenner - 2012 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (2):161-170.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2016-08-09

Total views
24 ( #453,888 of 2,448,668 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #225,044 of 2,448,668 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes