The dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity

Oversight of Dual-Use Research: What Role for Ethics Committees?

The World Health Organization (WHO) Global Guidance Framework for the Responsible Use of the Life Sciences addresses the governance of biorisks, including dual-use research, for countries. It emphasizes engaging multisectoral stakeholders such as governments, scientific bodies, health and research institutes, standard-setting organizations, funding bodies, and others. Ethics constitutes a key component of the framework. Given the high social impact of such research and the importance of trust, risk, and benefit, national ethics committees could make a valuable contribution by providing ethical guidance in the decisionmaking process. The purpose of this study was to examine the role of national ethics committees in the context of governance and oversight of dual-use research at the national level. We conducted a landscape analysis of the activities of ethics committees in dual-use research oversight. We also searched the WHO database on National Ethics Committees for publications related to dual-use research and/or misuse of life sciences research and gathered additional documentation from national ethics committees websites and through author contacts. Results showed that in the context of the wide range of oversight mechanisms for dual-use research in countries, national ethics committees have contributed to guiding policy and assessing dual-use research risks in only a limited number of countries. Recommendations from those countries include establishing a multistakeholder, coordinated oversight mechanism at the country level; strengthening international linkages to guide, harmonize, and reinforce national and international efforts; and involving ethics committees as an expert resource in the governance and oversight process.

Limiting open science? Three approaches to bottom-up governance of dual-use research of concern

Governing dual-use research of concern (DURC) in the life sciences has become difficult owing to the diversification of scientific domains, digitalization of potential threats, and the proliferation of actors. This paper proposes three approaches to realize bottom-up governance of DURC from laboratory operation to institutional decision-making levels. First, a technological approach can predict and monitor the dual-use nature of the research target pathogens and their information. Second, an interactive approach is proposed in which diverse stakeholders proactively discuss and examine dual-use issues through research practice. Third, a personnel approach can identify the right persons involved in DURC. These approaches suggest that, going beyond self-governance by researchers, collaborative and networked governance involving diverse actors should become essential. This mode of governance can also be seen in light of the management of research use. Therefore, program design by funding agencies and publication screening by journal publishers continuously contribute to governance at the meso-level. Bottom-up governance may be realized by using an appropriately integrated design of these three approaches at the micro-level, such as dual-use prediction and monitoring, stakeholder dialogue, and background checks. Given that the term 'open science' has been promoted to the research community as part of top-down governance, paying due attention on site to research subjects, research practices, and persons involved in research will provide an opportunity to develop a more socially conscious open science.

Strengthen oversight of risky research on pathogens

Policy reset and convergence on governance are needed.

Bioethical Boundaries, Critiques of Current Paradigms, and the Importance of Transparency

This issue of The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy is dedicated to topics in clinical ethics with essays addressing clinician participation in state sponsored execution, duties to decrease ecological footprints in medicine, the concept of caring and its relationship to conscientious refusal, the dilemmas involved in dual use research, a philosophical and practical critique of principlism, conundrums that arise when applying surrogate decision-making models to patients with moderate intellectual disabilities, the phenomenology of chronic disease, and ethical concerns surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in medicine. Throughout the issue, the themes of conceptual and moral boundaries in bioethics, critiques of current clinical ethics paradigms, and the importance of transparency are prominent.

Expert Perspectives on Oversight for Unregulated mHealth Research: Empirical Data and Commentary

In qualitative interviews with a diverse group of experts, the vast majority believed unregulated researchers should seek out independent oversight. Reasons included the need for objectivity, protecting app users from research risks, and consistency in standards for the ethical conduct of research. Concerns included burdening minimal risk research and limitations in current systems of oversight. Literature and analysis supports the use of IRBs even when not required by regulations, and the need for evidence-based improvements in IRB processes.

[Ethics committees in security-relevant research according to the recommendations of Leopoldina and the German Research Foundation]

The scientific freedom protected by the German Basic Law is a prerequisite for the progress and prosperity of society. However, free research is also associated with risks resulting from the fact that useful research results and methods can be abused, for example as weapons of war or as a means of criminal or terrorist activities.According to the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina and the German Research Foundation (DFG), meaningful control of these risks cannot be achieved through further legislation but only through appropriate awareness raising and self-governance tools within the scientific community. In order to make this more concrete, both organizations jointly published the "Recommendations for Handling Security-Relevant Research" in 2014. For the effective and sustainable implementation of these recommendations, the DFG and Leopoldina established the Joint Committee on the Handling Security-Relevant Research.In Germany, there are already numerous commissions with different names that deal with ethical issues in science. For some years now, in addition to the most numerous medical ethics committees primarily responsible for medical research on human beings and those committees supporting the authorities in deciding on the approval of animal experiments to protect animal welfare, an increasing number of so-called committees for ethics in security-relevant research have been set up. Following the recommendations of the joint committee of the DFG and Leopoldina, these committees advise researchers on site on questions concerning security-relevant aspects of research.