Cargando…
The dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity
BACKGROUND: Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) constitutes a major challenge for research practice and oversight on the local, national and international level. The situation in Germany is shaped by two partly competing suggestions of how to regulate security-related research: The German Ethics Cou...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5989368/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29871633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0295-0 |
_version_ | 1783329446753730560 |
---|---|
author | Salloch, Sabine |
author_facet | Salloch, Sabine |
author_sort | Salloch, Sabine |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) constitutes a major challenge for research practice and oversight on the local, national and international level. The situation in Germany is shaped by two partly competing suggestions of how to regulate security-related research: The German Ethics Council, as an independent political advisory body, recommended a series of measures, including national legislation on DURC. Competing with that, the German National Academy of Sciences and the German Research Foundation, as two major professional bodies, presented a strategy which draws on the self-control of science and, inter alia, suggests expanding the scope of research ethics committees (RECs) to an evaluation of DURC. MAIN BODY: This situation is taken as an occasion to further discuss the scope and limits of professional self-control with respect to security-related research. The role of RECs as professional bodies of science is particularly analyzed, referring to the theoretical backgrounds of professionalism. Two key sociological features of professionalism – ethical orientation and professional self-control – are discussed with respect to the practice of biomedical science. Both attributes are then analyzed with respect to the assessment of DURC by RECs. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, it is stated that issues of biosecurity transcend the boundaries of the scientific community and that a more comprehensive strategy should be implemented encompassing both professional self-control and legal oversight. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5989368 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-59893682018-06-20 The dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity Salloch, Sabine BMC Med Ethics Debate BACKGROUND: Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) constitutes a major challenge for research practice and oversight on the local, national and international level. The situation in Germany is shaped by two partly competing suggestions of how to regulate security-related research: The German Ethics Council, as an independent political advisory body, recommended a series of measures, including national legislation on DURC. Competing with that, the German National Academy of Sciences and the German Research Foundation, as two major professional bodies, presented a strategy which draws on the self-control of science and, inter alia, suggests expanding the scope of research ethics committees (RECs) to an evaluation of DURC. MAIN BODY: This situation is taken as an occasion to further discuss the scope and limits of professional self-control with respect to security-related research. The role of RECs as professional bodies of science is particularly analyzed, referring to the theoretical backgrounds of professionalism. Two key sociological features of professionalism – ethical orientation and professional self-control – are discussed with respect to the practice of biomedical science. Both attributes are then analyzed with respect to the assessment of DURC by RECs. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, it is stated that issues of biosecurity transcend the boundaries of the scientific community and that a more comprehensive strategy should be implemented encompassing both professional self-control and legal oversight. BioMed Central 2018-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5989368/ /pubmed/29871633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0295-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Debate Salloch, Sabine The dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity |
title | The dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity |
title_full | The dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity |
title_fullStr | The dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity |
title_full_unstemmed | The dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity |
title_short | The dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity |
title_sort | dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity |
topic | Debate |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5989368/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29871633 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0295-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sallochsabine thedualuseofresearchethicscommitteeswhyprofessionalselfgovernancefallsshortinpreservingbiosecurity AT sallochsabine dualuseofresearchethicscommitteeswhyprofessionalselfgovernancefallsshortinpreservingbiosecurity |