Biological weapons, genetics, and social analysis: Emerging responses, emerging issues - II

New Genetics and Society

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 297-314

  Rappert, Brian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; MEDICAL PRACTICE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RESPONSIBILITY; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT; TERRORISM; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; WAR AND HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES;

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BIOTECHNOLOGY; BIOTERRORISM; CODES OF ETHICS; ETHICS, PROFESSIONAL; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GENETIC RESEARCH; GREAT BRITAIN; INDUSTRY; INTERINSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; SOCIETIES, SCIENTIFIC; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 0842308897     PISSN: 14636778     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1463677032000147234     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Alberts, B. (1999) Scientific openness and national security, Science, 285, p. 45.
2. Alberts, B. (2002) Engaging in a Worldwide Transformation: Our Responsibility as Scientists for the Provision of Global Public Goods, Presidential Presentation at the US National Academy of Sciences, 29 April (Washington, DC).
3. American Society for Microbiology (ASM) (2002) Biological Agents - Laboratory Safety, http:// www.asmusa.org/pcsrc/biolabsafety.htm
4. Atlas, R. (2001) Bioterrorism: The ASM Response, http://www.asmusa.org/ pasrc/feature1.htm
5. Balmer, B. (2002) Biological warfare, Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 18, pp. 120-37.
6. British Medical Association (BMA) (1999) Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity. (London: Harwood Academic Publishers).
7. Bush, G. (2001) President's Statement on Biological Weapons, 1 November, http:// www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011101.html
8. Cassell, G., Miller, L. & Rest, R. (1994) Biological warfare: role of scientific societies. In Zilinskas, R. (ed) The Microbiologist and Biological Defense Research (New York: New York Academy of Science).
9. Coady, M. & Bloch, S. (eds) (1996) Codes of Ethics and Professions (Sydney: Melbourne University Press).
10. Cunningham-Burely, S. & Kerr, A. (1999) Defining the 'social', Sociology of Health & Illness, 21(5), pp. 647-68.
11. Dickson, D. (1984) The New Politics of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
12. Dennis, C. (2001) The bugs of war, Nature, 17 May, pp. 232-5.
13. Enserink, M. (2002) USDA loses lab doors to foreign scientists, Science, 10 May, p. 996.
14. Epstein, G. (2001) Controlling biological warfare threats, Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 27(4), pp. 321-54.
15. Federation of American Scientists (FAS) (2000) Controlling biological weapons, FAS Public Interest Report, 53, p. 5.
16. Freckelton, I. (1996) Enforcement of ethics. In Coady, M. & Bloch, S. (eds) Codes of Ethics and Professions (Sydney: Melbourne University Press).
17. Gewin, V. (2002) Security worries stifle report on agricultural bioterror, Nature, 419, p. 99.
18. Gibbons, M. (1999) Science's new social contract, Nature, 402, pp. C81-C84.
19. Gieryn, T. (1995) Boundaries of science. In Jasanoff, S. et al. Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (London: Sage Publications).
20. Gieryn, T. (1999) Cultural Boundaries of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
21. Gilbert, N. & Mulkay, M. (1984) Opening Pandora's Box (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
22. Halvorson, H. (1992) Civilian control of biological defense research. In Zilinskas, R. (ed) The Microbiologist and Biological Defense Research (New York: New York Academy of Science).
23. HMSO (2002) Strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (London: ]HMSO).
24. Irwin, A. & Wynne, B. (1996) Misunderstanding Science? (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
25. Kadlec, R., Zelicoff, A. & Vrtis, A. (1997) Biological weapons control, JAMA, 278, p. 5.
26. Kenney, M. (1986) Biotechnology: The University-Industry Complex (New Haven: Yale University Press).
27. Knobler, S., Mahmoud, A. & Pray, L. (eds) (2002) Biological Threats and Terrorism (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
28. Lancet Infectious Diseases (2001) Too much learning is a dangerous thing, Lancet Infectious Diseases, 1, p. 287.
29. Lichtenberg, J. (1996) What are codes of ethics for? In Coady, M. & Bloch, S. (eds) Codes of Ethics and Professions (Sydney: Melbourne University Press).
30. Macdonald, S. (1995) The Sociology of the Professions (London: Sage).
31. Malakoff, D. (2001) The year of living dangerously, Science, 294, p. 2443.
32. Malakoff, D. (2002a) Spending triples on terrorism R&D, Science, 295, p. 254.
33. Malakoff, D. (2002b) Tighter security reshapes research, Science, 297, pp. 1630-3.
34. Malakoff, D. (2002c) Congress homes in on new department's R&D programs, Science, 297, pp. 912-3.
35. Marshall, E. (1997) Too radical for NIH? Science, 275, pp. 744-6.
36. Merton, R. (1973) The normative structure of science. In Storer, N. (ed) The Sociology of Science (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
37. Meselson, M. (1989) Statement before the Senate governmental affairs committee and its permanent subcommittee on investigations, 17 May, quoted in Zilinskas, R. & T. Wilson (1992) Introduction. In Zilinskas, R. (ed) The Microbiologist and Biological Defense Research, pp. xiii-xiv (New York: New York Academy of Science).
38. Meselson, M. (1989) Statement before the Senate governmental affairs committee and its permanent subcommittee on investigations, 17 May, quoted in Zilinskas, R. & T. Wilson (1992) Introduction. In Zilinskas, R. (ed) The Microbiologist and Biological Defense Research, pp. xiii-xiv (New York: New York Academy of Science).
39. Meselson, M. (2000a) Averting the exploitation of biotechnology, FAS Public Interest Report, 53, p. 5.
40. Meselson, M. (2000b) The Problem of Biological Weapons. Presented at AAAS Annual Meeting, 17-22 February (Washington, DC).
41. Mulkay, M. (1975) Norms and ideology in science, Social Science Information, 15(4/5), pp. 637-56.
42. National Academy of Science (NAS) (1997) Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology (Washington, DC: National Academy Press).
43. National Commission on Terrorism. (2001) Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism (Washington, DC: National Commission on Terrorism).
44. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (2002) NIAID Strategic Plan for Biodefense Research (Washington, DC: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases).
45. Pels, P. (1999) Professions of duplexity, Current Anthropology, 40(2), pp. 101-14.
46. Poste, G. (2001) A rude awakening to the forces of good and evil, Financial Times, 27 November, iv.
47. Rappert, B. (2002) Technology; Politics and Conflict (London: Frank Cass).
48. Rappert, B. (2001) The distribution and resolution of the ambiguities of technology, Social Studies of Science, 31(4), pp. 557-92.
49. Rappert, B. & Webster, A. (1997) Regimes of ordering: the commercialisation of intellectual property in industrial-academic collaboration, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 9(2), pp. 115-30.
50. Relyea, H. (1994) Silencing Science (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing).
51. Sprinkle, R. (1992) Bioweaponry and 'life-science liberalism'. In Zilinskas, R. (ed) The Microbiologist and Biological Defense Research (New York: New York Academy of Science).
52. Steinbruner, J. (2000) Principles of Global Security (Washington, DC: Brookings Institute).
53. Stone, R. (2002) US visa crackdown disrupts meetings, Science, 23 August, p. 1259.
54. Sunshine Project (2002a) US Armed Forces Push for Offensive Biological Weapons Development, 8 May (Hamburg: The Sunshine Project).
55. Sunshine Project (2002b) Pentagon Program Promotes Psychopharmacological Warfare (Hamburg: The Sunshine Project).
56. United States Department of State (2002) Bush Strategy to Defend Against Bioterrorism, US Department of State Fact Sheet, 5 February.
57. United States National Security Decision Directive 189 (1985) National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical, and Engineering Information, 21 September.
58. Verhoog, H. (1981) The responsibility of scientists, Minerva, 19, Winter, pp. 587-602.
59. Weil, V. & Snapper, J. (eds) (1989) Owning Scientific and Technical Information (Rutgers: Rutgers University Press).
60. Wheelis, M. (2001) Deterring bioweapons development, Science, 291, p. 2089.
61. Wright, S. (ed) (1990) Preventing A Biological Arms Race (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
62. Wynne, B. (1998) Unruly technology: practical rules, impractical discourses and public understanding, Social Studies of Science, 18(1), pp. 147-67.
63. Zilinskas, R. (ed) (1992) The Microbiologist and Biological Defense Research (New York: New York Academy of Science).
64. Zilinskas, R. & Wilson, T. (1992) Biological Weapons. In Zilinskas, R. (ed) The Microbiologist and Biological Defense Research (New York: New York Academy of Science).