National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 4 Conclusions and Recommendations
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2009. 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. doi: 10.17226/12460.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2009. 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. doi: 10.17226/12460.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2009. 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. doi: 10.17226/12460.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2009. 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. doi: 10.17226/12460.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2009. 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. doi: 10.17226/12460.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2009. 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. doi: 10.17226/12460.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2009. 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. doi: 10.17226/12460.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2009. 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. doi: 10.17226/12460.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2009. 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. doi: 10.17226/12460.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Bibliography." National Research Council. 2009. 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. doi: 10.17226/12460.
×
Page 132

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Bibliography AAPOR (American Association for Public Opinion Research). 2006. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, 4th ed. Lenexa, KS: AAPOR. Alberts, B. 2005. Modeling attacks on the food supply. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102:9737–9738. Alberts, B., W. A. Wulf, and H. Fineberg. 2002. Current visa restrictions interfere with U.S. science and engineering contributions to important national needs. Statement from the presidents of the National Academies. December 13; rev. June 13, 2003. Available at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?Record ID=s12132002. Alibek, K., and S. Handelman. 1999. Biohazard: The Chilling True Story of the Largest Covert Biological Weapons Program in the World—Told from Inside by the Man Who Ran It. New York: Dell. Annan, K. 2006. Uniting Against Terrorism: Recommendations for a Global Counter-Terror- ism Strategy. Report of the Secretary-General. A/60/825. New York: United Nations. Available at http://www.un.org/unitingagainstterrorism/contents.htm. Annas, G. J. 2006. Bioterror and “bioart”—A plague o’ both your houses. New England Journal of Medicine 354:2715–2720. Atlas, R. 2003. Preserving scientific integrity and safeguarding our citizens: Challenges for scientific publishers in the age of bioterrorism. Available at http://www7.national academies.org/dsc/Atlas_Presentation_Sci_Openness.pdf. Atlas, R., and M. Dando. 2006. The dual use dilemma for the life sciences: Perspectives, co- nundrums, and global solutions. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 4:276–286. BBSRC/MRC/Wellcome Trust (Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust). 2005. Managing Risks of Misuse Associated with Grant Funding Activities. September. Available at http://www.bbsrc. ac.uk/organisation/policies/position/public_interest/misuse_of_research_joint.pdf. Berk, R. A., S. G. Korenman, and N. S. Wenger. 2000. Measuring consensus about scientific research norms. Science and Engineering Ethics 6:315–340. 123

124 DUAL USE RESEARCH IN THE LIFE SCIENCES Bernauer, H., J. Christopher, W. Deininger, M. Fischer, P. Habermeier, K. Heumann, S. Mau- rer, S. Schwer, P. Stähler, and T. Wagner. 2008. Technical Solutions for Biosecurity in Syn- thetic Biology. Report of a Workshop. Munich, Germany. Available at http://www.ia- sb.eu/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/iasb_report_biosecurity_syntheticbiology.pdf. Block, S. M. 1999. Living nightmares: Biological threats enabled by molecular biology. Pp. 39–75 in The New Terror: Facing the Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons, S. Drell, A. D. Sofaer, and D. Wilson, eds. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press. BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2008. The 2006–16 job outlook in brief. Occupational Outlook Quarterly 52(Spring):1. Blumenthal, D., E. G. Campbell, N. Causino, and K. S. Louis. 1996a. Participation of life- science faculty in research relationships with industry. New England Journal of Medicine 335:1734–1739. Blumenthal, D., N. Causino, E. Campbell, and K. S. Louis.1996b. Relationships between aca- demic institutions and industry in the life sciences—An industry survey. New England Journal of Medicine 334:368–373. Blumenthal, D., E. G. Campbell, M. S. Anderson, N. Causino, K. S. Louis. 1997. Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association 277:1224–1228. Blumenthal, D., E. G. Campbell, M. Gokhale, R. Yucel, B. Clarridge, S. Hilgartner, N. A. Holtzman. 2006. Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: Prevalences and predictors. Academic Medicine 81(2):137–145. Borras, C. 1982: AAAS Council Meeting. Science 215:1069–1072. Borras, C. 1984: AAAS Council Meeting. Science 225:387–390. Bügl, H., J. P. Danner, R. J. Molinari, J. Mulligan, D. A. Roth, R. Wagner, B. Budowle, R. M. Scripp, J. A. L. Smith, S. J. Steele, G. Church, and D. Endy. 2006. A practical perspective on DNA synthesis and biological security. Presentation at the International Consortium for Polynucleotide Synthesis. December 4. Available at http://pgen.us/ICPS.htm. Bullock, M., and S. Panicker. 2003. Ethics for all: Differences across scientific society codes. Science and Engineering Ethics 9:159–170. Campbell, P. 2006. Empowerment and restraint in scientific communication. EMBO Reports 7(Special Issue):S18–S22. Campbell, E. G., B. R. Clarridge, M. Gokhale, L. Birenbaum, S. Hilgartner, N. A. Holtzman, and D. Blumenthal. 2002. Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association 287:473–480. Carus, W. S. 2000. The Rajneeshees (1984). Pp. 115–138 in Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons, J. Tucker, ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2005. Researchers reconstruct 1918 pan- demic influenza virus; effort designed to advance preparedness. Press release, October 5. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r051005.htm. Cello, J., A. V. Paul, and E. Wimmer. 2002. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: genera- tion of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science 297:1016–1018. Check, E. 2002a. Biologists apprehensive over U.S. moves to censor information flow. Nature 415(6874):821. Check, E. 2002b. U.S. prepares ground for security clampdown. Nature 418(6901):906. Cohen, J. 2002. Designer bugs. Atlantic Monthly (July/August). Available at http://www. theatlantic.com/issues/2002/07/cohen-j.htm. Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. 2008. World at Risk: Report of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, Authorized Edition. New York: Vintage Books. Available at http://www.preventwmd. gov/report/. Cook, C., F. Heath, and R. Thompson. 2000. A Meta-analysis of Response Rates in Web- or Internet-based Surveys. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 60(6):821–837.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 125 Corneliussen, F. 2005. The impact of regulations on firms: A study of the biotech industry. Law & Policy 27:429–449. Corneliussen, F. 2006. Adequate regulation, a stop-gap measure, or part of a package? EMBO Reports 7(Special Issue):S50–S54. Council for Excellence in Government. 2004. From the Home Front to the Front Lines: Amer- ica Speaks Out About Homeland Security Survey. March. Available at http://www. excelgov.org/admin/FormManager/filesuploading/Homeland_Full_Report.pdf. Council on Governmental Relations. 2003. Report of the Working Group on the Cost of Doing Business. Available at http://rbm.nih.gov/fed_reg_20030906/FRNotice/Associations/ AAU_A-21_CODB.pdf. CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). 2006. The Biological Weapons Threat and Nonproliferation Options: A Survey of Senior U.S. Decision Makers and Policy Shapers. Washington, DC: CSIS and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Curtin, R., S. Presser, and E. Singer. 2000. The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 64:413–428. Dam, K., and H. Lin (eds.). 1996. Cryptography’s Role in Securing the Information Society [CRI- SIS]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Dando, M. R., and B. Rappert. 2005. Codes of Conduct for the Life Sciences: Some Insights from UK Academia. Bradford Briefing Paper 16. Available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/ acad/sbtwc/briefing/BP_16_2ndseries.pdf. Dando, M. R., and J. Revill. 2005. Raising Awareness: A Hippocratic Oath for Life Scientists. Bradford Briefing Paper 18. Available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/brief- ing/BP_18_2ndseries.pdf. Davidson, E. M., R. Frothingham, and R. Cook-Deegan. 2007. Practical experiences in dual use review. Science 216:1432–1433. De Vries, R., M. S. Anderson, and B. C. Martinson. 2006. Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1(1):43–50. Diffie, W. 1996. Foreword. In Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C, 2nd ed., B. Schneier, ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Available at http://www. schneier.com/book-applied-foreword.html. Dillman, D. A. 1991. The design and administration of mail surveys. Annual Review of Sociol- ogy 17:225–249. Eastwood, S., P. Derish, E. Leash, and S. Ordway. 1996. Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Sci- ence and Engineering Ethics 2(1):89–114. Epstein, G. L. 2001. Controlling biological warfare threats: Resolving potential tensions among the research community, industry, and the national security community. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 27:321–354. FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation). 2008. Science briefing on the anthrax Investigation: Opening statement by Dr. Vahid Majidi. Available at http://www.fbi.gov/page2/ august08/anthraxscience_081808.html. Federation of American Scientists. 2008a. Unexpected Experimental Results in Transgen- ic Research: Mousepox Case Study. Available at http://www.fas.org/biosecurity/ education/dualuse/FAS_Jackson/index.html. Federation of American Scientists 2008b. Genomics and Biological Weapons: Poliovirus Case Study. Available at http://www.fas.org/biosecurity/education/dualuse/FAS_ Wimmer/FAS_Topic_3_A.html. Fischer, J. E. 2006. Stewardship or Censorship: Balancing Biosecurity, the Public’s Health, and the Benefits of Scientific Openness. Washington, DC: Stimson Center. Available at http://www.stimson.org/globalhealth/pdf/Stewardship.pdf.

126 DUAL USE RESEARCH IN THE LIFE SCIENCES Fowler, F. J., Jr. 2001. Survey Research Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publica- tions. Fox, J. L. 2003. Bioterrorism threat could make some research too “sensitive” to disclose. ASM News. March. Available at: http://www.asm.org/microbe/index.asp?bid=1314 7. Frerichs, R. L., R. M. Salerno, K. M. Vogel, N. B. Barnett, J. Gaudioso, L. T. Hickok, D. Estes, and D. F. Jung. 2004. Historical Precedence and Technical Requirements of Biologi- cal Weapons Use: A Threat Assessment. SAND2004-1854. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories. Garfinkel M. S., D. Endy, G. L. Epstein, and R. M. Friedman. 2007a. Synthetic genomics: Options for governance. Industrial Biotechnology 3(4):333–365. Garfinkel, M. S., D. Endy, G. L. Epstein, and R. M. Friedman, eds. 2007b. Working Papers for Synthetic Genomics: Risks and Benefits for Science and Society. Available at http:// dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/39658. Gibbons, M. 2006. The year in numbers. In 2005 Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Tech- nology Colleges. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education. Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. 2007. Dual Use Research. Washington, DC: GQR Research, Inc. Gronvall, G. K. 2008. Improving the select agent program. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Web ed. October 29. Available at http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/ improving-the-select-agent-program. Groves, R. M. 2006. Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70:646–675. Hansen, S., A. Brewster, J. Asher, and M. Kisielewski. 2006. The Effects of Patenting in the AAAS Scientific Community. Available at: http://sippi.aaas.org/survey/AAAS_IP_ Survey_Report.pdf. Harris, E. D. 2007. Dual use biotechnology research: The case for protective oversight. In A Web of Prevention: Biological Weapons, Life Sciences and the Governance of Research, B. Rappert and C. McLeish, eds. London: Earthscan Publications. Jackson, R. J., A. J. Ramsay, C. D. Christensen, S. Beaton, D. F. Hall, and I. A. Ramshaw. 2001. Expression of mouse interleukin-4 by a recombinant ectromelia virus suppresses cytolytic lymphocyte responses and overcomes genetic resistance to mousepox. Journal of Virology 7:1205–1210. Johnson, C., D. Q. Wilber, and D. Eggen. 2008. Government asserts Ivins acted alone. Wash- ington Post (August 7):A01. Journal Editors and Authors Group (Atlas, R. M., P. Campbell, N. R. Cozarelli, G. Curfman, L. Enquist, G. Fink, A. Flanagin, J. Fletcher, E. George, G. Hammes, D. Heyman, T. Inglesby, S. Kaplan, D. Kennedy, J. Krug, R. Levinson, E. Marcus, H. Metzger, S. S. Morse, A. O’Brien, A. Onderdonk, G. Poste, B. Renault, R. Rich, A. Rosengard, S. Salzburg, M. Scanlan, T. Shenk, H. Tabor, H. Varmus, E. Wimmer, and K. Yamamoto). 2003a. Uncensored exchange of scientific results. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100:1464. Journal Editors and Authors Group (Atlas, R. M., P. Campbell, N. R. Cozarelli, G. Curfman, L. Enquist, G. Fink, A. Flanagin, J. Fletcher, E. George, G. Hammes, D. Heyman, T. Inglesby, S. Kaplan, D. Kennedy, J. Krug, R. Levinson, E. Marcus, H. Metzger, S. S. Morse, A. O’Brien, A. Onderdonk, G. Poste, B. Renault, R. Rich, A. Rosengard, S. Salzburg, M. Scanlan, T. Shenk, H. Tabor, H. Varmus, E. Wimmer, and K. Yamamoto). 2003b. Statement on the consideration of biodefence and biosecurity. Nature 421:771. Journal Editors and Authors Group (Atlas, R. M., P. Campbell, N. R. Cozarelli, G. Curfman, L. Enquist, G. Fink, A. Flanagin, J. Fletcher, E. George, G. Hammes, D. Heyman, T. In- glesby, S. Kaplan, D. Kennedy, J. Krug, R. Levinson, E. Marcus, H. Metzger, S. S. Morse, A. O’Brien, A. Onderdonk, G. Poste, B. Renault, R. Rich, A. Rosengard, S. Salzburg, M.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 127 Scanlan, T. Shenk, H. Tabor, H. Varmus, E. Wimmer, and K. Yamamoto). 2003c. State- ment on scientific publication and security. Science 299:1149. Kahn, L. 2007. Establishing a code of conduct in the life sciences. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Web ed. April 1. Available at http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/ columnists/laura-h-kahn/establishing-a-code-conduct-life-sciences. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2002. National Survey on the Public’s Attitudes Towards HIV/ AIDS in the US and the World. June. Available at: http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/ upload/National-Survey-on-the-Public-s-Attitudes-towards-HIV-AIDS-in-the-U-S- and-the-World-Survey-Toplines.pdf. Kaplan, S. 2008. The dual-use dilemma: Does it exist? Presentation at ASM Biodefense and Emerging Diseases Research Meeting, February 24, Baltimore, MD. Keeter, S., C. Miller, A. Kohut, R. M. Groves, and S. Presser. 2000. Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 64:125–148. Kempner, J., C. S. Perlis, and J. F. Merz. 2005. Ethics: Forbidden knowledge. Science 307(5711): 854. Kennedy, D. 2005. Better never than late. Science 310:195. Khan, M. 2006. Preparations and expectations. Presentation to the United Nations Gen- eral Assembly First Committee, Sixth Review Conference of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, October 11, New York. Available at: http://www.unog.ch/80256 EDD006B8954 /(httpAssets)/298DFC7CC2CD636 BC125720D0045 B3C8/$file/First_ Committee_BWC_thematic_presentation_slides.pdf. Knezo, G. J. 2004. “Sensitive but Unclassified” and Other Federal Security Controls on Sci- entific and Technical Information: History and Current Controversy. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Korenman, S. G., R. A. Berk, N. S. Wenger, and V. Lew. 1998. Evaluation of the research norms of scientists and administrators responsible for academic research integrity. Journal of the American Medical Association 279:41–47. Kwik, G., J. Fitzgerald, T. V. Inglesby, and T. O’Toole. 2003. Biosecurity: Responsible stew- ardship of bioscience in an age of catastrophic terrorism. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism 1:27–35. Leitenberg, M. 1999. Aum Shinrikyo’s efforts to produce biological weapons: A case study in the serial propagation of misinformation. Terrorism and Political Violence 2(4):149–158. Leitenberg, M. 2005. Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College. Lentzos, F. 2006. Managing biorisks: Considering codes of conduct. Nonproliferation Review 13(2):211–226. Lichtblau, E. 2001. Response to terror; rising fears that what we do know can hurt us. Los Angeles Times (November 18):A1. Macrina, F. 2007. Scientific societies and promotion of the responsible conduct of research: Codes, policies, and education. Academic Medicine 82:865–869. Martinson, B. C., M. S. Anderson, and R. De Vries. 2005. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 435(7043):737–738. Martinson, B. C., M. S. Anderson, A. L. Crain, and R. De Vries. 2006. Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research in Human Research Ethics 1(1):51–66. Maurer, S. M., K. V. Lucas, and S. Terrell. 2006. From Understanding to Action: Commu- nity-Based Options for Improving Safety and Security in Synthetic Biology. University of California, Berkeley. Available at http://gspp.berkeley.edu/iths/UC%20White%20 Paper.pdf. McCrary, S. V., C. B. Anderson, J. Jakovljevic, T. Khan, L. B. McCullough, N. P. Wray, and B. A. Brody. 2000. A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. New England Journal of Medicine 343:1621–1626.

128 DUAL USE RESEARCH IN THE LIFE SCIENCES McLeish, C., and P. Nightingale. 2005. Effective Action to Strengthen the BTWC Regime: The Impact of Dual Use Controls on UK Science. Bradford Briefing Paper 17. Available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/briefing/BP_17_2ndseries.pdf. Merkle, D., and M. Edelman. 2002. Nonresponse in exit polls: A comprehensive analysis. Pp. 243–258 in Survey Nonresponse, R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge, and R. J. A. Little, eds. New York: Wiley. Meselson, M. 2000. The problem of biological weapons. Presentation at Symposium on Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, May 2. MORI. 2000. The Role of Scientists in Public Debate. Prepared for The Wellcome Trust. Avail- able at http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/stellent/groups/corporatesite/@msh_peda/ documents/web_document/wtd003425.pdf. NAS/NAE/IOM (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Insti- tute of Medicine). 1982. Scientific Communication and National Security. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NAS/NAE/IOM. 2002. Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Counter- ing Terrorism. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Science Board. 2008. Science and Engineering Indicators 2008. Volume 1, NSB 08-01; Volume 2, NSB 08-01A. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Nature. 2005. Special report: The 1918 flu virus is resurrected. 437:794–795. NRC (National Research Council). 2004a. Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. Wash- ington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2004b. Seeking Security: Pathogens, Open Access, and Genomic Databases. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2006a. Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2006b. Policy Implications of International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2007a. Science and Security in a Post 9/11 World: A Report on Regional Discussions Between the Science and Security Communities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2007b. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. NRC. 2008. 2nd International Forum on Biosecurity: Report of an International Meeting, Budapest, Hungary, March 30–April 2. Washington, DC. The National Academies Press. NRC. 2009. Beyond Fortress America: National Security Controls on Science and Technology in A Globalized World. Washington, DC. The National Academies Press. NSABB (National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity). 2004. Charter: National Sci- ence Advisory Board for Biosecurity. Available at http://www.biosecurityboard.gov/ SIGNED%20NSABB%20Charter.pdf. NSABB. 2006. Addressing Biosecurity Concerns Related to the Synthesis of Select Agents. Available at http://www.biosecurityboard.gov/pdf/Final%20NSABB%20Report%20o n%20Synthetic%20Genomics.pdf. NSABB. 2007. Proposed Framework for the Oversight of Dual Use Life Sciences Research: Strategies for Minimizing the Potential Misuse of Research Information. Available at http://www. biosecurityboard.gov/news.asp. NSF (National Science Foundation). 2006. Characteristics of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States: 2003. Division of Science Resources Statistics, NSF 06-320. Arlington, VA: NSF. Orr, R. 2008. Harnessing the benefits of the biotechnology revolution while managing the potential risks: The role of the United Nations. Presentation at Sustaining Progress in the Life Sciences: Strategies for Managing Dual Use Research of Concern. Bethesda, MD, November 6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 129 Owens, L. K. 2005. Introduction to Survey Design. Chicago: Survey Research Laboratory, University of Illinois at Chicago. Available at http://www.srl.uic.edu/SEMINARS/ surveydesign.DOC. Pearson, G. S. 1993. Prospects for chemical and biological arms control: The web of deter- rence. Washington Quarterly 16(Spring):145–162. Pearson, G. S. 2004. A Code of Conduct for the Life Sciences: A Practical Approach. Bradford Briefing Paper 15. Available at: http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/briefing/BP_15_ 2ndseries.pdf. Petro, J. B. 2007. Intelligence Support to the Life Science Community: Mitigating Threats from Bioterrorism. Available at https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of- intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no3/article06.html. Price, J. H., J. A. Dake, and R. Islam. 2001. Selected ethical issues in research and publication: Perceptions of health education faculty. Health Education & Behavior 28(1):51–64. Rabino, I. 1998. Ethical debates in genetic engineering: U.S. scientists’ attitudes on patent- ing, germ-line research, food labeling, and agri-biotech issues. Politics and Life Sciences 17(2):147–163. Rabino, I. 2003a. Genetic testing and its implications: Human genetics researchers grapple with ethical issues. Science Technology and Human Values 28:365–402. Rabino, I. 2003b. Gene therapy: Ethical issues. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 24(1):31–58. Rappert, B. 2003a. Biological weapons, genetics, and social analysis: Emerging responses, emerging issues, II. New Genetics and Society 22:297–314. Rappert, B. 2003b. Coding ethical behavior: The challenges of biological weapons. Science and Engineering Ethics 9:453–470. Rappert, B. 2004. Towards a Life Science Code: Countering the Threats from Biological Weap- ons. Bradford Briefing Paper 13. Available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc. Rappert, B. 2007. Biotechnology, Security, and the Search for Limits: An Inquiry into Research and Methods. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Rappert, B. 2008. The benefits, risks, and threats of biotechnology. Science & Public Policy 35(1):37–44. Rappert, B., M. Chevrier, and M. Dando. 2006. In-Depth Implementation of the BTWC: Edu- cation and Outreach. Bradford Review Conference Paper 18. Available at http://www. brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/briefing/RCP_18.pdf. Revill, J., and M. R. Dando. 2006. A Hippocratic oath for life scientists. EMBO Reports 7(Spe- cial Issue):S55–S60. Revill, J., and M.R. Dando. 2008. Life scientists and the need for a culture of responsibility: after education . . . what? Science and Public Policy 35(1):29–35. Rice, C. 2001. Letter to Dr. Harold Brown from Condoleezza Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. November 1. Available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/ bush/cr110101.html. Roberts, B. (ed.). 2000. Hype or Reality: The “New Terrorism” and Mass Casualty Attacks. Alex- andria, VA: CBACI. Royal Society. 2008. Royal Society activities on reducing the risk of the misuse of scientific research. Available at: http://royalsociety.org/document.asp?tip=1&id=7964. Royal Society/Research Councils UK/The Wellcome Trust. 2006. Factors Affecting Sci- ence Communication. Available at http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id= 3048. Salyers, A. 2002. Science, censorship, and public health. Science 296(5568):617. Schemo, D. J. 2002. After 9/11, universities destroying bio agents. New York Times (December 17):A20. Schonlau, M., R. D. Fricker, Jr., and M. N. Elliott. 2002. Conducting Research Surveys via E-mail and the Web. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

130 DUAL USE RESEARCH IN THE LIFE SCIENCES Selgelid, M. J. 2007. A tale of two studies: Ethics, bioterrorism, and the censorship of science. Hastings Center Report 37(3):35–43. Shane, S., and E. Lichtblau. 2008. Scientist’s suicide linked to anthrax inquiry. New York Times. (August 2). Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/washington/ 02anthrax.html#. Sharp, P. A. 2005. 1918 Flu and responsible science. Science 310(5745):17. Shea, D. 2007. Oversight of Dual-Use Biological Research: The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Simon, J., and M. Hersh. 2002. An educational imperative: The role of ethical codes and normative prohibitions in CBW-applicable research. Minerva 40:37–55. Smith, H. O., C. A. Hutchison III, C. Pfannkoch, and J. C. Venter. 2003. Generating a synthetic genome by whole genome assembly: Phi X174 bacteriophage from synthetic oligonucle- otides. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100: 15440–15445. Somerville, M. A., and R. M. Atlas. 2005. Ethics: A weapon to counter bioterrorism. Science 307(5717):1881–1882. Stebbins, M. 2008. The “What if?” of Dual-Use Research Awareness: How Should Scien- tists Deal with Their Concerns? Scientists and Engineers Action Fund Blog. Available at http://sefora.org/2008/06/11/the-%e2%80%9cwhat-if%e2%80%9d-of-dual-use- research-awareness/. Steinbruner, J. D., E. D. Harris, N. Gallagher, and S. M. Okutani. 2007. Controlling Dangerous Pathogens. College Park, MD: Center for International Security Studies at Maryland. Sutton, V. 2007. Biodefense Researchers Survey of Opinions on the Select Agent Regulations and Achieving the Goal of National Security and Protecting Public Health. Center for Biodefense, Law and Public Policy, Texas Tech University School of Law. Sutton, V. 2009. Letter to the Editor: Survey Finds Biodefense Researcher Anxiety Over Inadvertently Violating Regulations. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Strategy, Practice, and Science 7(2):forthcoming. Taubenberger, J. K., A. H. Reid, R. M. Lourens, R. Wang, G. Jin, and T. G. Fanning. 2005. Characterization of the 1918 influenza virus polymerase genes. Nature 437:889–893. Timmer, J. 2008. AAAS: Ethics in scientific publishing. Available at http://arstechnica.com/ journals/science.ars/2008/02/17/aaas-ethics-in-scientific-publishing. Tumpey, T. M., C. F. Basler, P. V. Aguilar, H. Zeng, A. Solórzano, D. E. Swayne, N. J. Cox, J. M. Katz, J. K. Taubenberger, P. Palese, and A. García-Sastre. 2005. Characterization of the reconstructed 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus. Science 310:77–80. Tucker, J. (ed.). 2000. Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005a. NOAA Fisheries Survey Summary. Available at http:// www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/survey-political-interference-at- noaa-fisheries.html. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2005b. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Survey Summary. Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/us-fish-wildlife- service-survey.html. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2006. Food & Drug Administration Scientist Survey. Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/fda-scientists-survey- summary.html. Union of Concerned Scientists. 2008. Environmental Protection Agency Survey. Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/interference-at-the-epa. html. United Nations. 2006. The United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. UNGA Reso- lution A/RES/60/288. New York: United Nations, II/11. Available at http://www. un.org/terrorism/strategy-counter-terrorism.shtml#resolution.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 131 U.S. Department of State. 2006. Renewal of UN Security Council Resolution 1540 Committee Mandate. June 9. Available at http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/other/67974.htm. U.S. Government. 2008. Outreach and Education in the Life Sciences: Case Study in the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratories. Submitted to the 2008 Meeting of Experts of the Biological Weapons Convention, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at http:// daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/621/06/PDF/G0862106.pdf?Open Element. Van Aken, J. 2006. When risk outweighs benefit. EMBO Reports 7(Special Issue):S10–S13. Vastag, B. 2002. Openness in biomedical research collides with heightened security concerns. Journal of the American Medical Association 289:686–690. Venter, J. C. 2007. A Life Decoded: My Genome, My Life. New York: Viking. Vogel, K. M. 2008. Framing biosecurity: An alternative to the biotech revolution model? Sci- ence and Public Policy 35(1):45–54. Vogeli, C., R. Yucel, E. Bendavid, L. M. Jones, M. S. Anderson, K. S. Louis, and E. G. Campbell. 2006. Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: Results of a national survey. Academic Medicine 81(2):128–136. von Bubnoff, A. 2005. The 1918 flu virus is resurrected. Nature 437:794–795. Available at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7060/full/437794a.html. Wein, L. M., and Y. Liu. 2005. Analyzing a bioterror attack on the food supply: The case of botulinum toxin in milk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(28):9984– 9989. Weisberg, H.F. 2005. The Total Survey Error Approach: A Guide to the New Science of Survey Research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wenger, N. S., S. G. Korenman, R. Berk, and S. Berry. 1997. The ethics of scientific research: An analysis of focus groups of scientists and institutional representatives. Journal of Investigative Medicine 45:371–380. Wenger, N. S., S. G. Korenman, R. Berk, and H. Liu. 1999. Reporting unethical research behavior. Evaluation Review 23:553–570. White House. 1969. United States Policy on Chemical Warfare Program and Bacteriological/ Biological Research Program (NSDM 35). Available at http://www.state.gov/docu- ments/organization/90919.pdf. White House. 1985. National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information (NSDD-189). Available at http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd- 189.htm. White House. 2008. Designation and Sharing of Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI). Office of the Press Secretary (May 7). Available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/cui. html. White House 2009. Strengthening Laboratory Biosecurity in the United States. Executive Order (January 9). Available at http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:ZXz3J17R4vEJ:https:// www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090109-6.html+%22Strengthening+ Laboratory+Biosecurity+in+the+United+States+%22&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1. WHO (World Health Organization). 2005. Life Science Research: Opportunities and Risks for Public Health. Geneva: WHO. Available at http://www.who.int/ethics/Life%20S cience%20Research.pdf. WHO. 2007. Scientific Working Group on Life Science Research and Global Health Security: Report of the First Meeting. Geneva: WHO. Available at http://www.who.int/csr/ resources/publications/deliberate/WHO_CDS_EPR_2007_4. Willman, D., and D. G. Savage. 2008. FBI says evidence points uniquely to Bruce Ivins in anthrax case. LA Times (August 7). Available at http://www.latimes.com/news/ printedition/front/la-na-anthrax7-2008aug07,0,491144.story. Wimmer, E. 2006. The test-tube synthesis of a chemical called poliovirus. EMBO Reports 7(Special Issue):S3–S9.

132 DUAL USE RESEARCH IN THE LIFE SCIENCES Wright, S. 2007. Terrorists and biological weapons: Forging the linkage in the Clinton ad- ministration. Politics and the Life Sciences 25(1–2):57–115. Zilinskas, R., and J. B. Tucker 2002. Limiting the contribution of the open scientific literature to the biological weapons threat. Online Journal of Homeland Security (December). Avail- able at http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal/Articles/.tucker.html.

Next: Appendixes »
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 Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $90.00 Buy Ebook | $69.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The same technologies that fuel scientific advances also pose potential risks--that the knowledge, tools, and techniques gained through legitimate biotechnology research could be misused to create biological weapons or for bioterrorism. This is often called the dual use dilemma of the life sciences. Yet even research with the greatest potential for misuse may offer significant benefits. Determining how to constrain the danger without harming essential scientific research is critical for national security as well as prosperity and well-being.

This book discusses a 2007 survey of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) members in the life sciences about their knowledge of dual use issues and attitudes about their responsibilities to help mitigate the risks of misuse of their research.

Overall, the results suggest that there may be considerable support for approaches to oversight that rely on measures that are developed and implemented by the scientific community itself. The responses also suggest that there is a need to clarify the scope of research activities of concern and to provide guidance about what actions scientists can take to reduce the risk that their research will be misused by those with malicious intent.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!