Responsible Stewardship: Choices and Challenges in Preventing the

Malign Use of the Life Sciences

Brian Rappert

Responsible Stewardship Statements

• World Medical Association (2002) Declaration of Washington on Biological Weapons

• Appeal of International Committee of the Red Cross (2002)

• National Research Council (2003) Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism

• Statement of Journal Editors and Authors Group (2003)

• World Health Organization (2005) Governing Life Science Research – Opportunities and Risk for Public Health

• BBSRC, MRC and Wellcome Trust (2005) Managing Risks of Misuse Associated with Grant Funding Activities

• InterAcademy Panel (2005) Statement on Biosecurity

• BTWC (2003 & 2005) Report of the Meeting of States Parties

Emerging Prevailing Elements Of Responsible Stewardship

1. Self-governance by scientific communities - e.g., Asilomar & rDNA Guidelines v

UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act

2. Stay ahead of threats by ‘running faster’, but initiate mechanisms for scientific expert predicative risk-benefit assessment of individual research proposals, experiments, and publications.

3. Engage expertise and energies of scientists and others associated with the life sciences

Responsible Stewardship & Professional Codes

• InterAcademy Panel (2005) Statement on Biosecurity

• BTWC (2005) Report of the Meeting of States Parties

• International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (2005) Code of Ethics

• International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2005) The Building Blocks for a Code of Conduct for Scientists

• International Union of Microbiological Societies (2005) Code of Ethics for the Prevention of the Misuse of Scientific Knowledge, Research & Resources

• NSABB (2006) Considerations in Developing a Code of Conduct for Dual Use Research in the Life Science

Some Questions About Code Initiatives

With some Further Engagement Fostered, What Now?

More Prelude than Practice? - From code principles/considerations for a code

IAP, ICRC, ICGEB, BTWC, NSABB

Reiterate or Clarify? Extend or Consolidate? - still open questions, but…

What about Education and Awareness Raising Role?

Statements Of The Need For Risk-Benefit Assessment

• National Research Council (US) (2003) Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism

• Statement of Journal Editors and Authors Group (2003) • World Health Organization (2005) Governing Life

Science Research – Opportunities and Risk for Public Health

• BBSRC, MRC and Wellcome Trust (2005) Managing Risks of Misuse Associated with Grant Funding Activities

• American Medical Association (2005) Guidelines to Prevent Malevolent Use of Biomedical Research

• NSABB (2006) Draft Criteria for Dual Use Research of Concern

Experience With Expert Predicative Risk-Benefit Assessment Of Individual Research Activities

- 2003 Statement of Journal Editors and Authors Group: process agreed for reviewing, modifying, and perhaps even rejecting research articles where ‘the potential harm of publication outweighs the potential societal benefits.’

Results (???): No publication stopped yet in any journals; 1/5000 needing security assessment (ASM editorial group); couple modified

- Wellcome Trust never refused an application or imposed publication restrictions because of dual use concerns

- 2005 Sequencing and reconstruction of 1918 Flu virus: NSABB, Science, Nature agree benefits outweighed the risk

Reflections On Experience With Expert Predicative Risk-Benefit Assessment

• Why research of concern everywhere and nowhere?: Lack of appreciation, absence of issue, failure to detect?

• How to weigh?: Expert based v. metric based;

Balance v. precautionary approach

• How not to impose burdens yet change thinking?

• Other questions:- What gets funded?- What about the development of (sub-) fields

rather than individual activities?

Some Questions About Education

Ubiquitous underpinning, but…

- Education as ‘implanting’ or ‘eliciting’?

- Assuming the need for some challenging: Are ‘regulations’ and moral imagination co-dependent or at odds?

- If there is a need for ‘the public understanding of science’, is there also a need for ‘scientists understanding of the public’ or ‘scientists understanding of science’?