IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v41y2014i3p370-383..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Dual-use research and the H5N1 bird flu: Is restricting publication the solution to biosecurity issues?

Author

Listed:
  • Sabrina Engel-Glatter

Abstract

Recent studies altering the host range of the H5N1 bird flu virus have refueled intense debates over the potential misuse of academic life science research. To curtail the bioterrorism threat, it has been suggested that dissemination of the research results and methodology should be restricted. However, doubts have been raised over the suitability and effectiveness of this measure. Using the H5N1 studies as an example, this paper summarizes the main arguments of the debate. Particular attention is paid to the issue of the tacit knowledge required to replicate published life science research results, which has so far received limited attention. Taking into account the importance of tacit knowledge for life science research, it is argued that preventing publication of the methodology does not decrease the threat of bioterrorism.

Suggested Citation

  • Sabrina Engel-Glatter, 2014. "Dual-use research and the H5N1 bird flu: Is restricting publication the solution to biosecurity issues?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 370-383.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:3:p:370-383.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/sct064
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sabrina Engel-Glatter & Marcello Ienca, 2018. "Life scientists’ views and perspectives on the regulation of dual-use research of concern," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 92-102.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:41:y:2014:i:3:p:370-383.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.