National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$87.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

A Survey of Attitudes and Actions on Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences: A Collaborative Effort of the National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (2009)
Development, Security, and Cooperation (DSC)
Board on Life Sciences (BLS)

Citation Manager

. "3 Results of the Survey." A Survey of Attitudes and Actions on Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences: A Collaborative Effort of the National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
106
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


A Survey of Attitudes and Actions on Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences: A Collaborative Effort of the National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science
FIGURE 3-11 Respondents’ views regarding whether dual use research needs greater federal oversight.

FIGURE 3-11 Respondents’ views regarding whether dual use research needs greater federal oversight.

NOTE: Based on 1,637 respondents.

SOURCE: NRC/AAAS Survey; data tabulations by staff.

BOX 3-10

Illustrative Respondent Comments on Federal Oversight

“Dual use is nothing new, and restrictions on research in the name of preventing a bioterrorist attack is the worst form of censorship and is far more likely to produce greater problems and retard research than it is to foil a potential terrorist—free societies need to remain free, and research needs to proceed without additional controls beyond what is needed to ensure the safety of those performing the research and the general public from the research itself—not unlikely hypothetical misuse of the research by malignant boogie men. By such reasoning, all research could potentially be censored and we could enter a new dark ages.”


“Any desire to restrict the scientific pursuit of items that can be ambiguously termed “dual-use” would be harmful to science in this country. Additional rules for science usage are much riper for abuse of scientists than the “dual-use” science in the public domain.”


“By restricting research on biological agents that could be used in bioterrorism, we are more likely to prevent knowledge that will protect us from such agents.”

Page
106