Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (4):923-964 (2016)
AbstractGain-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.
Similar books and articles
The Ethical Analysis of Risks and Potential Benefits in Human Subjects Research: History, Theory, and Implications for U.S. Regulation.Charles Weijer - unknown
Ethical Decision Making: Special or No Different? [REVIEW]Dawn R. Elm & Tara J. Radin - 2012 - Journal of Business Ethics 107 (3):313-329.
Ethical Decision-Making in Research: Identifying All Competing Interests: Commentary on “Six Domains of Research Ethics”.Michael Kalichman - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (2):215-218.
A Network Approach for Distinguishing Ethical Issues in Research and Development.Sjoerd D. Zwart, Ibo van de Poel, Harald van Mil & Michiel Brumsen - 2006 - Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (4):663-684.
Ethical Aspects of Human Subject Research in Biomedicine.David Bruce Fletcher - 1984 - Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
An Integrated Model for Ethical Decisions in Marketing Research.Naresh K. Malhotra & Gina L. Miller - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (3):263-280.
Examining the Social Benefits Principle in Research with Human Participants.David B. Resnik - 2018 - Health Care Analysis 26 (1):66-80.
The Relationship Between Salespersons’ Ethical Philosophy and Their Ethical Decision-Making Process.Mirahmad Amirshahi, Mahmood Shirazi & Sara Ghavami - 2014 - Asian Journal of Business Ethics 3 (1):11-33.
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.
Assessing Research Risks Systematically: The Net Risks Test.D. Wendler & F. G. Miller - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (8):481-486.
What We Worry About When We Worry About the Ethics of Clinical Research.David Wendler - 2011 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (3):161-180.
Pandemic Influenza Preparedness: An Ethical Framework to Guide Decision-Making. [REVIEW]Alison Thompson, Karen Faith, Jennifer Gibson & Ross Upshur - 2006 - BMC Medical Ethics 7 (1):1-11.
Risk-Benefit Analysis: From a Logical Point of View. [REVIEW]Georg Spielthenner - 2012 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 9 (2):161-170.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Experimental Design: Ethics, Integrity and the Scientific Method.Jonathan Lewis - 2020 - In Ron Iphofen (ed.), Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity. Cham, Switzerland: pp. 459-474.
Climate Uncertainty, Real Possibilities and the Precautionary Principle.Jeroen Hopster - forthcoming - Erkenntnis:1-17.
Agent-Based Models of Dual-Use Research Restrictions.Elliott Wagner & Jonathan Herington - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (2):377-399.
Rationality, Expected Utility Theory and the Precautionary Principle.Andreas Christiansen - 2019 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 22 (1):3-20.
The Dual Use of Research Ethics Committees: Why Professional Self-Governance Falls Short in Preserving Biosecurity.Sabine Salloch - 2018 - BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1):53.
References found in this work
Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle.Cass R. Sunstein - 2005 - Cambridge University Press.