Biosecurity, bioterrorism and the governance of science: The increasing convergence of science and security policy

Research Policy

Volumn 36, Issue 10, 2007, Pages 1635-1654

  McLeish, Caitríona ^a   Nightingale, Paul ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b SPRU   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Biological weapons; Biological weapons convention; Biosecurity; Bioterrorism; Governance of science

Indexed keywords

EMPLOYMENT; PUBLIC POLICY; TEACHING;

BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION; BIOSECURITY; GOVERNANCE OF SCIENCE;

SECURITY SYSTEMS;

EID: 36049050659     PISSN: 00487333     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.10.003     Document Type: Article

References (139)

1. Acha, V.L., 2002, Framing the past and future: the development and deployment of technological capabilities by the oil majors in the upstream petroleum industry. Unpublished D.Phil. Thesis. University of Sussex, UK.
2. Alic J.A. Technical knowledge and technology diffusion: new issues for US Government Policy. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 5 4 (1993) 369-383
3. Alic J., Branscomb L., Brooks H., Epstein G., and Carter A. Beyond Spin-off: Military and Commercial Technologies in a Changing World (1992), Harvard Business School Press, Boston
4. Altman S., et al. An open letter to Elias Zerhouni. Science 307 5714 (2005) 1409-1410
5. Ames E., and Rosenberg. The Enfield arsenal in theory and history. Economic Journal 78 (1968) 827-842
6. Archibugi D. Pavitt's taxonomy sixteen years on: a review article. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 10 5 (2001) 415
7. Arnone, M., 2004. New survey confirms sharp drop in applications to US colleges from foreign graduate students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. March 4.
8. Atlas R.A. Bioterrorism before and after September 11. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 27 (2001) 355-379
9. Atlas R.A. National security and the biological research community. Science 298 (2002) 753-754
10. Atlas R.M. National security and the biological research community. Science 298 (2002) 753-754
11. Atlas R.M. Science publishing in the age of bioterrorism. Academe 89 5 (2003) 14-18
12. Bacon. Daedalus, or the Mechanik. Of the Wisdom of the Ancients (1609), Deer, Brighton (Chapter 19)
13. Balmer B. Biological weapons: the threat in historical perspective. Medicine, Conflict and Survival 18 2 (2002) 120-137
14. Balmer B. Britain and Biological Warfare: Expert Advice and Science Policy 1930-65 (2001), Palgrave, Basingstoke
15. Balmer B. A Secret formula, a rogue patent and public knowledge about nerve gas. Social Studies of Science 36 5 (2006) 691-722
16. Balmer B. The drift of biological weapons policy in the UK 1945-65. The Journal of Strategic Studies 20 4 (1997) 115-145
17. Bozeman B. Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory. Research Policy 29 (2000) 627-655
18. Braithwaite J. Beyond positivism: learning from contextual integrated strategies. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30 (1993) 383-399
19. Braithwaite J. A Sociology of modelling and the politics of empowerment. British Journal of Sociology 45 3 (1994) 445-479
20. Braithwaite J. Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (2002), Oxford University Press, New York
21. Braithwaite J., and Drahos P. Global Business Regulation (2000), Cambridge University Press
22. Breithaupt H. Toxins for terrorists do scientists act illegally when sending out potentially dangerous material?. EMBO Reports 1 4 (2000) 298-301
23. Broad, W., 2002. US is tightening rules on keeping scientific secrets. The New York Times, 17 February
24. Byers M. Policing the high seas: the proliferation security initiative. American Journal of International Law 98 3 (2004) 526-545
25. Cameron G. Multi-track microproliferation: Lessons from Aum Shinrikyo and Al Qaeda. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 22 4 (1999) 277-309
26. Cello A., Paul A.U., and Wimmer E. Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science 297 (2002) 1016-1018
27. Chyba C., and Greninger A. Biotechnology and bioterrorism: An unprecedented world. Survival 46 2 (2004) 143-162
28. Cochrane R.C. The National Academy of Sciences: The First Hundred Years, 1863-1963 (1978), National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
29. Corneliussen F. Adequate regulation, a stop-gap measure, or part of a package? Debates on codes of conduct for scientists could be diverting attention away from more serious questions. EMBO Reports 7 (2006) 50-54
30. Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), 2004. Council of Graduate Schools Finds Decline in New International Graduate Student Enrolment for the Third Consecutive Year. 4 November. Available at: http://www.cgsnet.org/.
31. Cowan R., and Foray D. Quandaries in the economics of dual technologies and spillovers from military to civilian research and development. Research Policy 24 6 (1995) 851-868
32. Cozzavelli N.R. PNAS policy on publication of sensitive material in the life sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences United States of America 100 (2003) 1463
33. Danchin A. Not every truth is good. The dangers of publishing knowledge about potential bioweapons. EMBO Reports 3 (2002) 102-104
34. Defense Science Board, 2000. Protecting the Homeland: Report of the Defense Science Board. Washington, DC.
35. Dosi G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy 11 3 (1982) 147-162
36. Ellis J. The best defense: counterproliferation and US national security. The Washington Quarterly 26 2 (2003) 115
37. Enserink M., and Kaiser J. Has bioterrorism gone overboard?. Science 307 (2005) 1396-1398
38. Finkel E. Engineered mouse virus spurs bioweapon fears. Science 291 (2001) 585
39. Fourth Review, 1996, Fourth Review of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological Biological and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, Final Document, Geneva, 25 November-6 December 1996, BWC/CONF.IV/9.
40. Fraser C.M., and Dando M.R. Genomics and future biological weapons: the need for preventive action by the biomedical community. Nature Genetics 29 (2001) 253-256
41. Freeman C. The Economics of Industrial Innovation (1982), Pinter
42. Gaudioso J., and Salerno R.M. Biosecurity and research: minimizing adverse impacts. Science 304 5671 (2004) 687
43. In: Geissler E., and van Courtland Moon J.E. (Eds). Biological and Toxin Weapons: Research, Development, and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945, SIPRI Chemical and Biological Warfare Study No. 18 (1999), Oxford University Press, Oxford
44. Gibbons M., and Johnston R. The roles of science in technological innovation. Research Policy 3 3 (1974) 220-242
45. Gilbert N. All postgraduate visas to require security vetting. Research Research (2007)
46. Greenwood C. The law of war (International Humanitarian Law). In: Evans M.D. (Ed). International Law (2000), Oxford University Press 769-823 (Chapter 25)
47. Guillemin J. Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism (2005), Columbia University Press, New York
48. Harris E.D., and Steinbruner J.D. Scientific Openness and National Security After 9/11. The CBW Conventions Bulletin 67 (2005) 1-3
49. Hasenclever A., Mayer P., and Rittberger V. Theories of International Regimes, Cambridge Studies in International Relations, No. 55 (1997), Cambridge University Press
50. Hicks, D., 1995. Published papers, tacit competencies and corporate management of the public/private character of knowledge. Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 4, No. 2, p. 401
51. Hobday M. Product complexity, innovation and industrial organisation. Research Policy 26 (1998) 689-710
52. Hopkins M.M., and Nightingale P. Strategic risk-management using complementary assets: organizational capabilities and the commercialisation of human genetic testing in the UK. Research Policy 35 3 (2006) 355-374
53. Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, Committee on Advances in Technology and the Prevention of their Application to Next General Biowarfare Threats, 2006. Globalization, Biosecuity and the Future of the Life Sciences. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
54. Jackson B. Technology Acquisition by Terrorist Groups: Threat Assessment Informed by Lessons from Private Sector Technology Adoption. Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 24 3 (2001)
55. Jackson R., Ramsay A., Christensen C., Beaton S., Hall D., and Ramshaw I. Expression of mouse interleukin-4 by recombinant ectromelia virus suppresses cytolytic lymphocyte responses and overcomes genetic resistance to mousepox. Journal of Virology 75 (2001) 1205-1210
56. Joyner D. The Proliferation Security Initiative and International Law (2004), Center for International Trade and Security, CITS Briefs, Athens, Georgia
57. Kahn A.H. Biodefense research: can secrecy and safety coexist?. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefence Strategy, Practice and Science 2 2 (2004) 815-855
58. Kellman B. Criminalization and control of WMD proliferation: The Security Council acts. The Nonproliferation Review 11 2 (2004) 142-161
59. Kellman B. Biological terrorism: legal measures for preventing catastrophe. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 24 2 (2001) 457-462
60. Kline S.J., and Rosenberg N. An overview of innovation. In: Landau R., and Rosenberg N. (Eds). The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth (1986), National Academic Press, Washington, DC
61. Koblentz G. Pathogens as weapons: The international security implications of biological warfare. International Security 28 3 (2003) 84-122
62. In: Krasner S. (Ed). International Regimes (1983), Cornell University Press, New York
63. Leitenberg M. Biological weapons in the twentieth century: a review and analysis. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 27 (2001) 267-320
64. Leitenberg M. Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat (2005), Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College
65. Lentzos F. Rationality, risk and response: a research agenda for biosecurity. BioSocieties 1 (2006) 453-464
66. Littlewood J. The Biological Weapons Convention: A Failed Revolution (2005), Ashgate, London
67. Littlewood, J., 2004. Managing the biological weapons problem: from the individual to the international. WMD Commission. Paper No. 14.
68. MacEachin D.J. Routine and challenge: two pillars of verification. The CBW Conventions Bulletin: Quarterly Journal of the Harvard Sussex Program on CBW Armament and Arms Limitation 39 (1998) 1-3
69. MacKenzie D. Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (1990), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
70. MacKenzie D., and Spinardi G. Tacit knowledge and the uninvention of nuclear weapons. In: MacKenzie D. (Ed). Knowing Machines: Essays on Technical Change (1996), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
71. Malakoff D. Researchers urged to self-censor sensitive data. Science 299 (2003) 321
72. Martin B., and Nightingale P. Introduction. In: Martin B., and Nightingale P. (Eds). The Political Economy of Science, Technology and Innovation (2000), Edward Elgar
73. Martin S.B. The role of biological weapons in international politics: the real military revolution. Journal of Strategic Studies 25 1 (2002) 25 1, 63
74. McLeish C., and Nightingale P. The Impact of Dual Use Controls on UK Science: Results from a Pilot Study, SWEPS 132 (2005), SPRU, Brighton
75. McLeish, C., 2002. Accommodating bio-disarmament to bio-technological change. Unpublished D.Phil. Thesis. SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton.
76. McLeish C. A background note on dual use technologies: can technology studies inform the dual use debate?. Paper Presented at 21st Pugwash CBW Workshop: The BWC New Process and the Sixth Review Conference. Geneva, Switzerland, December 4-5, 2004 (2004), SPRU, Brighton
77. Merton R. The Sociology of Science (1973), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
78. Meselson M., and Robinson J.P. A draft convenion to prohibit biological and chemical weapons under international criminal law. In: Yepes-Enríquez R., and Tobassi L. (Eds). Treaty Enforcement and International Co-operation in Criminal Matters with Special Reference to the Chemical Weapons Convention (2002), TMC Asser Press, The Hague
79. Meselson M., and Robinson J.P. Preventing the hostile use of biotechnology: the way forward now. The CBW Conventions Bulletin 57 (2002) 1-2
80. Meselson M. Averting the hostile exploitation of biotechnology. The CBW Conventions Bulletin 48 (2000) 16-19
81. Molas-Gallart, J., Robinson, J.P. 1997. Assessment of dual-use technologies in the context of European security and defence. Report for the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA), European Parliament.
82. Molas-Gallart, J., 1996. Developing dual-use technology transfer methodologies: a taxonomy of policy alternatives. Report Prepared for the National Engineering Laboratory, SPRU, Brighton.
83. Molas-Gallart J. Coping with dual-use: a challenge for European research policy. Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2002) 155-165
84. Molas-Gallart J. Which way to go? Defense technology and the diversity of 'dual use' technology transfer. Research Policy 26 (1997) 367-385
85. Molas-Gallart, J., 2000. The political and economic context of European defence R&D. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series No. 52. University of Sussex.
86. Moodie, M., 2004. Confronting the biological and chemicals challenge: the need for an "intellectual infrastructure". The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, vol. 28, Winter.
87. Müller H. The internationalisation of principles, norms and rules of governments: the case of security regimes. In: Ritterger V., and Mauer P. (Eds). Regime Theory and International Relations (1995), Clarendon Press, Oxford
88. Musser G. Better killing through chemistry. Scientific American 285 (2001) 20-21
89. National Academies of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, 1982. Scientific Communication and National Security. A Report Prepared by the Panel on Scientific Communication and National Security Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. US National Academy Press, Washington DC [The Corson Report]. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309033322/html/.
90. National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences. Committee on Research, Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology, 2004. Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism: Confronting the Dual use Dilemma. US National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
91. National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences. Committee on Advances in Technology and the Prevention of Their Application to Next Generation Biowarfare Threats, 2005. An International Perspective on Advancing Technologies and Strategies for Managing Dual-Use: A Report from a Workshop. National Research Council, Washington, DC.
92. Nature Editorial. Statement on the consideration of biodefence and biosecurity. Nature 421 (2003)
93. In: Nelson R.R. (Ed). The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity (1962), Princeton University Press, Princeton
94. Nightingale P. A cognitive model of innovation. Research Policy 27 (1998) 687-709
95. Nightingale P. The product-process-organisation relationship in complex development projects. Research Policy 29 (2000) 913-930
96. Nightingale P. Technological capabilities, invisible infrastructure and the un-social construction of predictability: the overlooked fixed costs of useful research. Research Policy 33 9 (2004) 1259-1284
97. Noble R.K. Secretary-general's foreword. Bio-terrorism Incident Pre-planning and Response Guide (2006), ICPO-INTERPOL, Lyon, France
98. Oosthuizen, G., Wilmshurst, E., 2004. Terrorism and weapons of mass destruction: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540. Chatham House Briefing Paper 04/01.
99. Pavitt K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 13 (1984) 343-373
100. Pavitt K. Technology, Management and Systems of Innovation (1999), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
101. Pearson G.S. Prospects for chemical and biological arms control: the web of deterrence. Washington Quarterly 16 2 (1993 (Spring)) 147-148
102. Purver R. Chemical and Biological Terrorism: the Threat According to the Open Literature (2002), Canadian Security and Intelligence Service
103. Reppy J. Dual-use technology: back to the future?. In: Markusen A., and Costigan S. (Eds). Arming the Future: A Defense Industry for the 21st Century (1999), Council on Foreign Relations Press, New York, NY
104. Reppy J. Managing Dual-Use Technology in an Age of Uncertainty. The Forum 4 1 (2006). http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol4/iss1/art2 Article 2. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/forum/vol4/iss1/art2
105. Roberts B. Rethinking export controls on dual-use materials and technologies: From trade restraints to trade enablers. The Arena 2 (1995)
106. Robinson J.P. Controlling dual-use biotechnology: the crucial role of national measures. Paper for the 8th Pugwash Study Group on Implementation of the CBW Conventions Workshop. Geneva, September 20-21, 1997 (1997), SPRU, Brighton
107. Robinson J.P. The Australia Group: a description and assessment. In: Brauch H., van der Graaf H., Grin J., and Smit W. (Eds). Controlling the Development and Spread of Military Technology: Lessons from the Past and Challenges for the 1990s (1992), VU University Press, Amsterdam
108. Rosenberg N. Technological change in the machine tool industry, 1840-1910. Journal of Economic History 23 (1963) 414-443
109. Rosenberg N. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics (1982), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
110. Rosengard A., Liu Y., Nie Z., and Jimenez R. Variola virus immune evasion design: expression of a highly efficient inhibitor of human complement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (2002) 8808.R-8813.R
111. Rothwell R. The characteristics of successful innovators and technically progressive firms. R&D Management 7 3 (1977) 191-206
112. Royal Society. Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management (1992), Royal Society, London
113. Schwellenback N. Biodefense: A Plague of Researchers. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 61 3 (2005) 14
114. Searle J.R. The Construction of Social Reality (1995), Allen Lane
115. Sunstein C.R. Terrorism and probability neglect. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 26 (2003) 121-136
116. The Hague, 1923. Draft rules of aerial warfare. Never Adopted.
117. Tuerlings E., and McLeish C. Is risk assessment a useful method to govern dual use research?. Paper Presented at 21st Pugwash CBW Workshop: The BWC New Process and the Sixth Review Conference. Geneva, Switzerland, December 4-5, 2004 (2004), SPRU, Brighton
118. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 1974. The Biological Weapons Act.
119. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2003. Export of Goods, Transfer of Technology and Provision of Technical Assistance (Control) Order.
120. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2001. Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act.
121. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2001. Paper Prepared as part of Background Paper On New Scientific And Technological Developments Relevant To The Convention On The Prohibition Of The Development, Production And Stockpiling Of Bacteriological (Biological) And Toxin Weapons And On Their Destruction, BWC/CONF. V/4/Add.1.
122. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2002. Export Control Act.
123. United Nations General Assembly, 1977. Economic and social consequences of the armaments and its extremely harmful effects on world peace and security. Report of the Secretary General, A/32/88 August 12, 1977.
124. United Nations Security Council, 1992. Note by the President of the Security Council. January 31, S/23500.
125. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, 2004. Non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. S/RES/1540.
126. United States of America, 1985. National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information. NSDD 189.
127. United States of America, 1989. The Biological Weapons Anti Terrorism Act.
128. United States of America, 1996. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
129. United States of America, 1996. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
130. United States of America, 2001. Paper Prepared as part of Background Paper on New Scientific and Technological Developments Relevant to the Convention on The Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. BWC/CONF.V/4.
131. United States of America, 2001. Uniting and Strengthening America by providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot) Act.
132. United States of America, 2002. Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act.
133. United States of America, 2002. Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act.
134. United States of America, 2004. Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act.
135. Walker W. Reflections on transparency and international security. In: Zarimpas N. (Ed). Transparency in Nuclear Warheads and Materials: The Political and Technical Dimensions (2003), Oxford University Press (Chapter 1)
136. Wallerstein M.B. Science in an age of terrorism. Science 297 (2002) 2169
137. Wheelis M., and Dando M. On the brink: biodefence, biotechnology and the future of weapons control. The CBW Conventions Bulletin 58 (2002) 3-7
138. Wilkie, T., 1993. Foreign students to be vetted, Independent (London), March 16, p. 1.
139. Zilinskas R.A. Iraq's biological weapons: the past as future?. In: Lederberg J. (Ed). Biological Weapons: Limiting the Threat (1999), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA