IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v45y2018i1p92-102..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Life scientists’ views and perspectives on the regulation of dual-use research of concern

Author

Listed:
  • Sabrina Engel-Glatter
  • Marcello Ienca

Abstract

In the early 2000s, several publications initiated a debate about the potential misuse of academic life science research. The debate was refueled in 2012, when two studies describing the engineering of human transmissive H5N1 bird flu virus were published. To facilitate the debate on dual-use research of concern (DURC) and regulatory measures, we interviewed life science researchers working in Switzerland about their views on DURC. The results indicate that all scientists interviewed were aware of the debate, however, few had reflected about dual-use aspects with regard to their own work. Although all respondents believed in freedom of research, a majority was supportive of some form of regulation of DURC. This article discusses the major implications of the study, especially regarding the implementation of regulatory measures. In addition, preliminary recommendations are given for raising awareness on DURC in the life sciences among researchers.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:45:y:2018:i:1:p:92-102.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scx050
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Caitriona McLeish & Paul Nightingale, 2005. "The Impact of Dual Use Controls on UK Science: Results from a Pilot Study," SPRU Working Paper Series 132, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    3. Judith Petts, 2008. "Public engagement to build trust: false hopes?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(6), pages 821-835, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gordon Walker & Noel Cass & Kate Burningham & Julie Barnett, 2010. "Renewable Energy and Sociotechnical Change: Imagined Subjectivities of ‘the Public’ and Their Implications," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(4), pages 931-947, April.
    2. McLeish, Caitriona & Nightingale, Paul, 2007. "Biosecurity, bioterrorism and the governance of science: The increasing convergence of science and security policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1635-1654, December.
    3. Ngar-yin Mah, Daphne & Hills, Peter, 2014. "Participatory governance for energy policy-making: A case study of the UK nuclear consultation in 2007," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 340-351.
    4. Christian Oltra & Paul Upham & Hauke Riesch & Àlex Boso & Suzanne Brunsting & Elisabeth Dütschke & Aleksandra Lis, 2012. "Public Responses to Co2 Storage Sites: Lessons from Five European Cases," Energy & Environment, , vol. 23(2-3), pages 227-248, May.
    5. Matthew Cotton & Patrick Devine-Wright, 2011. "Discourses of Energy Infrastructure Development: A Q-Method Study of Electricity Transmission Line Siting in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(4), pages 942-960, April.
    6. Iosif Botetzagias & Chrisovaladis Malesios & Anthi Kolokotroni & Yiannis Moysiadis, 2015. "The role of NIMBY in opposing the siting of wind farms: evidence from Greece," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(2), pages 229-251, February.
    7. Wim Kellens & Teun Terpstra & Philippe De Maeyer, 2013. "Perception and Communication of Flood Risks: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 24-49, January.
    8. Lejla Dervisevic & Leigh Raymond & Linda J. Pfeiffer & Jessica V. Merzdorf, 2021. "Trade-offs versus reassurance: framing competing risks in the 2016 Zika outbreak," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 729-747, December.
    9. Hobbs, Jill E. & Goddard, Ellen, 2015. "Consumers and trust," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 71-74.
    10. Fernanda Bethlem Tigre & Paulo Lopes Henriques & Carla Curado, 2022. "Building trustworthiness: Leadership self-portraits," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 3971-3991, December.
    11. Emma Soane & Iljana Schubert & Simon Pollard & Sophie Rocks & Edgar Black, 2016. "Confluence and Contours: Reflexive Management of Environmental Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1090-1107, June.
    12. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Saleh Wasimi, 2010. "Planning for a Large Dam Project: The Case of Traveston Crossing Dam," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 24(12), pages 2991-3015, September.
    14. Adriana A. Zuniga-Teran & Andrea K. Gerlak, 2019. "A Multidisciplinary Approach to Analyzing Questions of Justice Issues in Urban Greenspace," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-22, May.
    15. Mah, Daphne Ngar-yin & Hills, Peter & Tao, Julia, 2014. "Risk perception, trust and public engagement in nuclear decision-making in Hong Kong," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 368-390.
    16. Ceglarz, Andrzej & Beneking, Andreas & Ellenbeck, Saskia & Battaglini, Antonella, 2017. "Understanding the role of trust in power line development projects: Evidence from two case studies in Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 570-580.
    17. James A. Pollard & David C. Rose, 2019. "Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi‐Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 473-487, February.
    18. Del Giudice, Teresa & Cavallo, Carla & Vecchio, Riccardo, 2018. "Credence Attributes, Consumers Trust and Sensory Expectations in Modern Food Market: Is there a Need to Redefine their Role?," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 9(4), August.

    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:45:y:2018:i:1:p:92-102.. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.