Beyond Patchwork Precaution in the Dual-Use Governance of Synthetic Biology

The emergence of synthetic biology holds the potential of a major breakthrough in the life sciences by transforming biology into a predictive science. The dual-use characteristics of similar breakthroughs during the twentieth century have led to the application of benignly intended research in e.g. virology, bacteriology and aerobiology in offensive biological weapons programmes. Against this background the article raises the question whether the precautionary governance of synthetic biology can aid in preventing this techno-science witnessing the same fate? In order to address this question, this paper proceeds in four steps: it firstly introduces the emerging techno-science of synthetic biology and presents some of its potential beneficial applications. It secondly analyses contributions to the bioethical discourse on synthetic biology as well as precautionary reasoning and its application to life science research in general and synthetic biology more specifically. The paper then identifies manifestations of a moderate precautionary principle in the emerging synthetic biology dual-use governance discourse. Using a dual-use governance matrix as heuristic device to analyse some of the proposed measures, it concludes that the identified measures can best be described as “patchwork precaution” and that a more systematic approach to construct a web of dual-use precaution for synthetic biology is needed in order to guard more effectively against the field’s future misuse for harmful applications.     

Data Sharing and Dual-Use Issues

The concept of dual-use encapsulates the potential for well-intentioned, beneficial scientific research to also be misused by a third party for malicious ends. The concept of dual-use challenges scientists to look beyond the immediate outcomes of their research and to develop an awareness of possible future (mis)uses of scientific research. Since 2001 much attention has been paid to the possible need to regulate the dual-use potential of the life sciences. Regulation initiatives fall under two broad categories—those that develop the ethical education of scientists and foster an awareness and responsibility of dual-use issues, and those which assess the regulation of information being generated by current research. Both types of initiatives are premised on a cautious, risk-adverse philosophy which advocates careful examination of all future endpoints of research endeavors. This caution advocated within initiatives such as pre-publication review of journal articles contrasts to the obligation to share underpinning data sharing discussions. As the dual-use debate has yet to make a significant impact on data sharing discussions (and vice versa) it is possible that these two areas of knowledge control may present areas of ethical conflict for scientists, and thus need to be more closely examined. This paper examines the tension between the obligation to share exemplified by data sharing principles and the concerns raised by the risk-cautious culture of the dual-use debates. The paper concludes by reflecting on the issues of responsibility as raised by dual-use as relating to data sharing, such as the chain of custody for shared data.     

Dual-Use Research Codes of Conduct: Lessons from the Life Sciences

This paper considers multiple meanings of the expression ‘dual use’ and examines lessons to be learned from the life sciences when considering ethical and policy issues associated with the dual-use nature of nanotechnology (and converging technologies). After examining recent controversial dual-use experiments in the life sciences, it considers the potential roles and limitations of science codes of conduct for addressing concerns associated with dual-use science and technology. It concludes that, rather than being essentially associated with voluntary self-governance of the scientific community, codes of conduct should arguably be part of a broader regulatory oversight system.     

Knowledge Justice: An Opportunity for Counter-expertise in Security vs. Science Debates

ABSTRACT

Knowledge justice provides a conceptual framework to apply principles of social justice in environments of competing interests regarding science. Both knowledge and its making can be seen as a good to be distributed, including all voices for whom the science will matter. In this framework, knowledge production is shared among a broader constituency of knowers representing both local and cosmopolitan voices. The problem of knowledge injustice can be seen in the U.S. government’s recent attempt to secure scientific knowledge about H5N1 or avian bird flu virus. The censorship produced a global debate between scientists and policy-makers over how to balance the nation-state’s desire for security with the life science’s tradition of open and shared research. This conundrum, known as the dual-use dilemma, obscures larger questions that lie outside of expert-centered domains—namely the concerns of many communities in the Global South struggling with the impact of the virus in their daily lives. An example of such counter-expertise is that of the backyard poultry farmer whose ways of knowing are foreign to science and policy experts who frame the ways in which knowledge about H5N1 should be developed, controlled, and used. While the H5N1 debate illuminated competing positions regarding knowledge production between powerful elites, it ignored the social justice inequities produced by the dual-use dilemma. The concept of knowledge justice provides a way of thinking about science that can include locally situated counter-expertise, disrupting the dual-use dilemma produced by competing dominant priorities of security and public health.     

Evolution of Different Dual-use Concepts in International and National Law and Its Implications on Research Ethics and Governance

This paper provides an overview of the various dual-use concepts applied in national and international non-proliferation and anti-terrorism legislation, such as the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, and national export control legislation and in relevant codes of conduct. While there is a vast literature covering dual-use concepts in particular with regard to life sciences, this is the first paper that incorporates into such discussion the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540. In addition, recent developments such as the extension of dual-use export control legislation in the area of human rights protection are also identified and reviewed. The discussion of dual-use concepts is hereby undertaken in the context of human- and/or national-security-based approaches to security. This paper discusses four main concepts of dual use as applied today in international and national law: civilian versus military, peaceful versus non-peaceful, legitimate versus illegitimate and benevolent versus malevolent. In addition, the usage of the term to describe positive technology spin-offs between civilian and military applications is also briefly addressed. Attention is also given to the roles civil society and research ethics may play in the governance of dual-use sciences and technologies.     

Creativity and Ethics: The Relationship of Creative and Ethical Problem-Solving

Students of creativity have long been interested in the relationship between creativity and deviant behaviors such as criminality, mental disease, and unethical behavior. In the present study we wished to examine the relationship between creative thinking skills and ethical decision-making among scientists. Accordingly, 258 doctoral students in the health, biological, and social sciences were asked to complete a measure of creative processing skills (e.g., problem definition, conceptual combination, idea generation) and a measure of ethical decision-making examining four domains, data management, study conduct, professional practices, and business practices. It was found that ethical decision-making in all four of these areas was related to creative problem-solving processes with late cycle processes (e.g., idea generation and solution monitoring) proving particularly important. The implications of these findings for understanding the relationship between creative and deviant thought are discussed.     

Creativity and Ethics: The Relationship of Creative and Ethical Problem-Solving

Students of creativity have long been interested in the relationship between creativity and deviant behaviors such as criminality, mental disease, and unethical behavior. In this study we wished to examine the relationship between creative thinking skills and ethical decision-making among scientists. Accordingly, 258 doctoral students in the health, biological, and social sciences were asked to complete a measure of creative processing skills (e.g., problem definition, conceptual combination, idea generation) and a measure of ethical decision-making examining four domains: data management, study conduct, professional practices, and business practices. It was found that ethical decision-making in all four of these areas was related to creative problem-solving processes with late-cycle processes (e.g., idea generation and solution monitoring) proving particularly important. The implications of these findings for understanding the relationship between creative and deviant thought are discussed.     

Priming a natural or human-made environment directs attention to context-congruent threatening stimuli

Research suggests that attention is attracted to evolutionary threats (e.g., snakes) due to an evolved "fear-module" that automatically detects biological threats to survival. However, recent evidence indicates that non-evolutionary threats (e.g., guns) capture and hold attention as well, suggesting a more general "threat-relevance" mechanism that directs attentional resources toward any potential danger in the environment. The current research measured how selective attentional resources were influenced both by the type of threat (e.g., snake vs. gun) and by the context in which the threat was encountered. Participants were primed with either natural or human-made environments to assess how these contexts influence attention to evolutionary and non-evolutionary threats, as measured by a spatial-cueing task. The results indicate that whether biological or non-biological threats receive greater attentional processing is determined by the context in which they are encountered.     

Education for Life Scientists on the Dual-Use Implications of Their Research

Advances in the life sciences are occurring with extreme rapidity and accumulating a great deal of knowledge about life’s vital processes. While this knowledge is essential for fighting disease in a more effective way, it can also be misused either intentionally or inadvertently to develop novel and more effective biological weapons. For nearly a decade civil-academic society as well as States Parties to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention have recognised the importance of dual-use biosecurity education for life scientists as a means to foster a culture of responsibility and prevent the potential misuse of advances in the life sciences for non-peaceful purposes. Nevertheless, the implementation of dual-use biosecurity education for life scientists has made little progress in institutions of higher learning. Professional societies and academic organizations have worked from the bottom-up in developing online dual-use biosecurity education modules that can be used for instruction. However, top-down help is needed from goverments if further progress is to be made in implementing biosecurity education for life scientists.     

In a no-win situation: The employment–health dilemma

Work and organizational psychology (WOP) research has to date mostly focused on people privileged to have the choice between several attractive job options and less on people who are restricted in their job choice (e.g., due to their qualification or personal contingencies) and have to choose from fewer and often less-than-optimal jobs. Often, the jobs available to the latter are characterized by precarious employment and hazardous working conditions which can put them in the difficult situation of having to choose between a health-threatening job and possible unemployment. Building on interdisciplinary literature, we propose the employment–health dilemma (E-H dilemma) as a framework for analyzing this intrapersonal conflict of having to choose between employment (incurring health threats) and health (incurring economic threats) and discuss potential antecedents and consequences of the E-H dilemma at the societal, organizational, and individual level. We outline the implications of the E-H dilemma and make a case for examining the full spectrum of job choice situations in WOP research. In doing so, we demonstrate what WOP can gain by embracing a more inclusive and multidisciplinary approach: uncovering processes in their entirety (e.g., job choice decisions of all people) and strengthening the role and legitimacy of WOP in society.     

When Psychotherapy Is Not Working: Ethical Considerations

Evidence-based practice (EBP) models have been developed, in part, to enhance the likelihood that the outcome of health care treatment, including psychotherapy, leads to positive improvement. However, two additional outcomes can occur: no change and poor outcome (e.g., harm, worsening of symptoms). What does the clinician do when psychotherapy is not working? When faced with various treatment decisions, such as this, the EBP model posits that therapists should apply their clinical expertise in considering the “best available research” within the context of various patient characteristics. In part because of various limitations of this approach, I suggest that another important set of principles are important to consider in tandem when faced with this clinical dilemma—that is, ethical concerns. Borrowing from the American Psychological Association’s (2017a) Ethics Code, I discuss how the following issues exist when clinicians wrestle with this question: avoidance of harm, competence, conflicts of interest, and informed consent. I conclude this paper with a list of suggestions that can potentially foster the application of ethical principles when making treatment decisions.     

Many roads lead to Rome: Self‐regulatory strategies and their effects on self‐control

In a self‐control conflict, people face a dilemma between a current goal (e.g., to exercise regularly) and competing impulses, habits, or desires (e.g., to stay on the couch and continue watching TV). To resolve such conflicts in favor of their goals, individuals may capitalize on a variety of self‐regulatory strategies. In this article, we review recent research on the self‐regulatory strategies people use in their daily lives, research on the effectiveness of these strategies, and research on the consequences of self‐regulatory strategy use on well‐being. We furthermore take both an individual‐differences and a situational perspective by linking strategy use to individual differences between people (e.g., in self‐control) and by emphasizing that strategy effectiveness likely depends on situational context (e.g., on current demands). Finally, we introduce ideas and potential future research questions revolving around the role of individual differences in regulatory flexibility (including context‐sensitivity) for determining a person's self‐regulatory success.     

Priming a natural or human-made environment directs attention to context-congruent threatening stimuli

Research suggests that attention is attracted to evolutionary threats (e.g., snakes) due to an evolved “fear-module” that automatically detects biological threats to survival. However, recent evidence indicates that non-evolutionary threats (e.g., guns) capture and hold attention as well, suggesting a more general “threat-relevance” mechanism that directs attentional resources toward any potential danger in the environment. The current research measured how selective attentional resources were influenced both by the type of threat (e.g., snake vs. gun) and by the context in which the threat was encountered. Participants were primed with either natural or human-made environments to assess how these contexts influence attention to evolutionary and non-evolutionary threats, as measured by a spatial-cueing task. The results indicate that whether biological or non-biological threats receive greater attentional processing is determined by the context in which they are encountered.     

Moral Principles Underlying the Treatment of Adults With Memories of Childhood Abuse

Ethical decision making measures are widely applied as the principal dependent variable used in studies of research integrity. However, evidence bearing on the internal and external validity of these measures is not available. In this study, ethical decision making measures were administered to 102 graduate students in the biological, health, and social sciences, along with measures examining exposure to ethical breaches and the severity of punishments recommended. The ethical decision making measure was found to be related to exposure to ethical events and the severity of punishments awarded. The implications of these findings for the application of ethical decision making measures are discussed.     

Improving Mental Health on College Campuses: Perspectives of Indian College Students

The mental health of college students is increasingly viewed as an important public health priority. However, there has been little attention paid specifically to college students’ perspectives on factors that contribute to mental health challenges or on potential initiatives that could address them. Even less research has focused on students in low- and middle-income countries. In an effort to better understand how to improve mental health and wellness on college campuses, we administered an open-ended survey to 141 Indian college students (M_age = 19.47, 65% female). We asked the students to identify: (a) issues that contribute to mental health problems among college students, (b) potential initiatives or strategies that could be used to improve mental health and wellness, and (c) topics that students would like to learn about in a course about mental health and wellness. Applying thematic analysis, we identified academic stressors (e.g., pressure to succeed, competitiveness) and social stressors (e.g., lack of community, party culture and substance abuse) that students reported as contributors to mental health problems. Students also described mental health promotion strategies that could be implemented by faculty members (e.g., providing academic accommodations for students with mental health concerns), the student body (e.g., establishing peer counseling groups), and individual students (e.g., checking in with others). Finally, they identified topics that they would like to learn about in mental health and wellness courses (e.g., how to identify mental health concerns, how to support friends). By raising several potential targets for mental health and wellness interventions for Indian college students, our study illustrates how open-ended surveys can be a useful and feasible way to solicit input from stakeholders in low- and middle-income countries. Future research will be needed to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of mental health promotion strategies, including those proposed by students.     

From Cases to Capacity? A Critical Reflection on the Role of ‘Ethical Dilemmas’ in the Development of Dual-Use Governance

The dual-use issue is often framed as a series of paralyzing ‘dilemmas’ facing the scientific community as well as institutions which support innovation. While this conceptualization of the dual-use issue can be useful in certain contexts (such as in awareness-raising and as part of educational activities directed at the scientific community) its usefulness is more limited when reflecting on the governance and politics of the dual-use issue. Within this paper, key shortcomings of the dilemma framing are outlined. It is argued that many of the issues raised in the most recent debates about ‘dual-use’ bird flu research remain unresolved. This includes questions about the trajectories of certain lines of research, as well as broader trends in the practice and governance of science. This leads to difficult questions about current approaches to the dual-use issue within the US, as well as internationally.     

What creates the dilemma in ethical dilemmas? Examples from psychological practice

Twenty psychologists were interviewed about an ethical dilemma that they had found to be particularly difficult to resolve. In just under half of the cases the dilemma involved a perceived conflict of ethical principles (e.g., the welfare of the consumer vs. the right to privacy). In the other cases, the psychologists were prevented from following an ethically prescribed course of action by some nonethical consideration such as contractual obligation, legal requirement, or the demands of an employer. We discuss the implications of these two sorts of dilemmas for psychological practice and make some suggestions for proactive approaches to ethical problem solving.     

Field and Experience Influences on Ethical Decision Making in the Sciences

Differences across fields and experience levels are frequently considered in discussions of ethical decision making and ethical behavior. In the present study, doctoral students in the health, biological, and social sciences completed measures of ethical decision making. The effects of field and level of experience with respect to ethical decision making, metacognitive reasoning strategies, social-behavioral responses, and exposure to unethical events were examined. Social and biological scientists performed better than health scientists with respect to ethical decision making. Furthermore, the ethical decision making of health science students decreased as experience increased. Moreover, these effects appeared to be linked to the specific strategies underlying participants' ethical decision making. The implications of these findings for ethical decision making are discussed.     

What Creates the Dilemma in Ethical Dilemmas? Examples From Psychological Practice

Twenty psychologists were interviewed about an ethical dilemma that they had found to be particularly difficult to resolve. In just under half of the cases the dilemma involved a perceived conflict of ethical principles (e.g., the welfare of the consumer vs. the right to privacy). In the other cases, the psychologists were prevented from following an ethically prescribed course of action by some nonethical consideration such as contractural obligation, legal requirement, or the demands of an employer. We discuss the implications of these two sorts of dilemmas for psychological practice and make some suggestions for proactive approaches to ethical problem solving.