Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences

Ethical and Philosophical Consideration of the Dual-Use Dilemma in the Biological Sciences

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 1-75

  Miller, Seumas ^a   Selgelid, Michael J ^b  

^a CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892265176     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8312-9     Document Type: Book

References (164)

1. Anonymous (2003). Statement on the consideration of biodefence and biosecurity. Nature, 421(6925), 771.
2. Atlas, R. M., & Reppy, J. (2005). Globalizing biosecurity. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, 3(1), 51-60.
3. Badash, L. (2004). Science and social responsibility. Minerva, 42, 285-298.
4. Balmer, B. (2002). Killing without the distressing preliminaries: Scientists defence of the British biological warfare programme. Minerva, 40(1), 57-75.
5. Barletta, M., Sands, A., & Tucker, J. B. (2002). Keeping track of anthrax: The case for a biosecurity convention. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 58(3), 57-62.
6. Beck, V. (2003). Advances in life sciences and bioterrorism. EMBO Reports, 4(special issue), S53-S56.
7. Block, S. M. (2001). The growing threat of biological weapons. American Scientist, 89(1), 28-38.
8. Block, S. M. (2002). A not-so-cheap stunt. Science, 297, 769.
9. Cello, J., Paul, A. V., & Wimmer, E. (2002). Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: Generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science, 297(5583), 1016-1018.
10. Check, E. (2003). US army attacked over published patent for bioweapons grenade. Nature, 423(6942), 789.
11. Choffnes, E. (2002). Bioweapons: New labs, more terror? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 58(5), 29-32.
12. Cook-Deegan, R. M., Berkelman, R., Davidson, E. M., Finder, S., Heitman, E., Kelley, M. C., King, N. M. P., Moseley, R., Thomas, J. C., Tilden, S. J., & Vangsnes, N. M. (2005). Issues in biosecurity and biosafety. Science, 308, 1867-1868.
13. Couzin, J. (2002). Active poliovirus baked from scratch. Science, 297, 174-175.
14. Couzin, J. (2004). US agencies unveil plan for biosecurity peer review. Science, 303(5664), 1595.
15. Cozzarelli, N. R. (2003). PNAS policy on publication of sensitive material in the life sciences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(4), 1463.
16. Eckenwiler, L. (2005). Ethics and the underpinnings of policy in biodefense and emergency pre-paredness. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 14, 306-315.
17. Editorial (2003). Censoring science. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168(12), 1517.
18. Ember, L. (2004). Securing dual-use biology. Chemical and Engineering News, 82(11), 11.
19. Enserink, M. (2004). Tiptoeing around pandoras box. Science, 305(5684), 594-595.
20. Enserink, M., & Kaiser, J. (2005). Has biodefense gone overboard? Science, 307(5714), 1396-1398.
21. 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(4), 321-354.
22. Falkow, S. (2003). "Statement on Scientific Publication and Security" fails to provide necessary guidelines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(10), 5575-5576.
23. Frishknecht, F. (2003). The history of biological warfare. EMBO Reports, 4(special issue), S47-S52.
24. Green, S. K., Taub, S., Morin, K., & Higginson, D. (for the Counceil on Ethical, Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association) (2006). Position paper: Guidelines to prevent malevolent use of biomedical research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 15(4), 432-439.
25. Henderson, D. A., & Fenner, F. (2001). Recent events and observations pertaining to smallpox virus destruction in 2002. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 33(7), 1057-1059.
26. Jackson, R. J., Ramsay, A. J., Christensen, C. D., Beaton, S., Hall, D. F., & Ramshaw, I. A. (2001). Expression of mouse interleukin-4 by a recombinant ectromelia virus suppresses cytolytic lymphocyte responses and overcomes genetic resistance to mousepox. Journal of Virology, 75(3), 1205-1210.
27. Johnston, J. B., Nazarian, S. H., & McFadden, R. N. (2005). Myxoma virus infection of primary fibroblasts varies with cellular age and is regulated by host interferon responses. Virology, 332(1), 235-248.
28. Journal Editors, Authors Group (2003). Uncensored exchange of scientific results. PNAS, 100(4), 1464.
29. Kahn, L. H. (2003). Life scientists and the dual use dilemma. Science, 302(5652), 1894-1895.
30. Kaiser, J. (2005). Resurrected influenza virus yields secrets of deadly 1918 pandemic. Science, 310(5745), 28-29.
31. Keel, B. A. (2004). Protecting Americas secrets while maintaining academic freedom. Academic Medicine, 79(4), 333-342.
32. Kelley, M., & Coghlan, J. (2003). Mixing bugs and bombs. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 59(5), 24-31.
33. Kelley, M. (2006). Infectious disease research and dual-use risk. Virtual Mentor, 8(4), 230-234.
34. Kennedy, D. (2002). Response to Steven M. Block's "A not-so-cheap stunt". Science, 297, 769-770.
35. Kennedy, D. (2003). Two cultures. Science, 299, 1148.
36. Kwik, G., Fitzgerald, J., Inglesby, T. V., & O'Toole, T. (2003). Biosecurity: Responsible stewardship of bioscience in an age of catastrophic terrorism. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, 1(1), 27-35.
37. Lachmann, P. J. (2005). Microbial subversion of the immune response. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(13), 8461-8462.
38. Leitenberg, M. (2003). Distinguishing offensive from defensive biological weapons research. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 29(3), 223-257.
39. Leitenberg, M., Leonard, J., & Spertzel, R. (2003). Biodefense crossing the line. Politics and the Life Sciences, 22(2), 2-3.
40. MacLeod, R. (2002). Preface. Minerva, 40(1), 1-2.
41. Müllbacher, A., & Lobigs, M. (2001). Creation of killer poxvirus could have been predicted. Journal of Virology, 75(18), 8353-8455.
42. Nixdorff, K., & Bender, W. (2002). Ethics of university research, biotechnology and potential military spin-off. Minerva, 40(1), 15-35.
43. Petro, J. B., & Relman, D. A. (2003). Understanding threats to scientific openness. Science, 302, 1898.
44. Pomerantsev, A. P., Staritsin, N.A., Mockov, Yu. V., & Marinin, L. I. (1997). Expression of cereolysine AB genes in Bacillus anthracis vaccine strain ensures protection against experimental hemolytic anthrax infection. Vaccine, 15(17/18), 1846-1850.
45. Quester, G. H. (2000). Mismatched deterrents: preventing the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. International Studies Perspectives, 1, 165-176.
46. Rabodzey, A. (2003). Biosecurity implications of the synthesis of pathogenic viruses. Politics and the Life Sciences, 22(2), 44-49.
47. Racaniello, V. R., & Baltimore, D. (1981). Cloned poliovirus complementary DNA is infectious in mammalian cells. Science, 214, 916-919.
48. Rath, J., Bernhard, J., & Doblhoff-Dier, O. (2004). Journals must cooperate to defend biosecurity. Nature, 432(7017), 549.
49. Read, T. D. et al. (2003). The genome sequence of Bacillus anthracis ames and comparison to closely related bacteria. Nature, 423(6935), 81-86.
50. Resnik, D. B. (2005). Conflicts of interest at the NIH: No easy solution. Hastings Center Report, 35(1), 18-20.
51. Richman, D. D. (2006, preprint), Antiviral drug resistance. Antiviral Research Available at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/antiviral.
52. Robbins, S. J., Jackson, R. J., Fenner, F., Beaton, S., Medveczky, J., Ramshaw, I. A., & Ramsay, A. J. (2005). The efficacy of cidofovir treatment of mice infected with ectromelia (Mousepox) virus encoding interleukin-4. Antiviral Research, 66(1), 1-7.
53. Rosengard, A. M., Liu, Y., Nie, Z., & Jimenez, R. (2002). Variola virus immune evasion design: Expression of a highly efficient inhibitor of human complement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 99(13), 8808-8813.
54. Schulz, W (2003). Biotechnology research reviews. Chemical and Engineering News, 81(41), 15.
55. Schwellenbach, N. (2005). Biodefense: A plague of researchers. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 61(3), 14-16.
56. Selgelid, M. J. (2003). Smallpox revisited? The American Journal of Bioethics, 3(1): W5-W11.
57. Selgelid, M. J. (2004). Bioterrorism and smallpox planning: Information and voluntary vaccination. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30, 558-560.
58. Selgelid, M. J. (2006). The ethics of dangerous discovery. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 15(4): 444-447.
59. Selgelid, M. J. (2007). A tale of two studies: Ethics, bioterrorism, and the censorship of science. The Hastings Center Report, 37(3), 35-43.
60. Shimono, N., Morici, L., Casali, N., Cantrell, S., Sidders, B., Ehrt, S., & Riley, L. W. (2003). Hypervirulent mutant of mycobacterium tuberculosis resulting from disruption of the mce1 operon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(26), 15918-15923.
61. Simon, J., & Hersh, M. (2002). An educational imperative: The role of ethical codes and normative prohibitions in CBW-Applicable research. Minerva, 40(1), 37-55.
62. Somerville, M. A., & Atlas, R. M. (2005). Ethics: A weapon to counter bioterrorism. Science, 307(5717), 1881-1882.
63. Taubenberger, J. K., Reid, A. H., Lourens, R. M., Wang, R., Jin, G., & Fanning, T. G. (2005). Characterization of the 1918 influenza virus polymerase genes. Nature, 437(7060), 889-893.
64. Tian, J., Gong, H., Sheng, N., Zhou, X., Gulari, E., Gao, X., & Church, G. (2004). Accurate multiplex gene synthesis from programmable DNA microchips. Nature, 432(7020), 1050-1054.
65. Tumpey, T. M., Basler, C. F., Aguilar, P. V., Zeng, H., Solorzano, A., Swayne, D. E., Cox, N. J., Katz, J. M., Taubenberger, J. K., Palese, P., & Garcia-Sastre, A. (2005). Characterization of the reconstructed 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus. Science, 310(5745), 77-80.
66. van Aken, J., & Hammond, E. (2003). Genetic engineering and biological weapons. EMBO Reports, 4(special issue), S57-S60.
67. van den Hoven, J. (1997). Computer ethics and moral methodology. Metaphilosophy, 28(3), 234-249.
68. Weckert, J., & Moor, J. (2006). The precautionary principle in nanotechnology. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 20(2), 191-204.
69. Wheelis, M., & Dando, M. (2003). Back to bioweapons? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 59(1), 41-46.
70. Zanders, J.-P. (2002). Introduction. Minerva, 40(1), 3-13.
71. Briggle, A. (2005). Double effect and dual use. In C. Mitcham (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science, technology, & ethics (Vol. 2). Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA.
72. King, J., & Strauss, H. (1990). The hazards of defensive biological warfare programs. In S. Wright (Ed.), Preventing a biological arms race. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
73. Lappe, M. (1990). Ethics in biological warfare research. In S. Wright (Ed.), Preventing a biological arms race. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
74. Marshall, J. M. (2004). Known stocks of the smallpox virus should be retained for research. In W. Dudley (Ed.), Biological warfare: Opposing viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
75. Reed, L., & Shulman, S. (2002). A perilous path to security? Weighing US "Biodefense" against qualitative proliferation. In S. Wright (Ed.), Biological warfare and disarmament: New problems, new perspectives. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
76. Alibek, K., & Handelman, S. (1999). Biohazard. Broadway, NY: Dell Publishing.
77. Enemark, C. (2004). Disease security in Northeast Asia: Biological weapons and natural plagues. Strategic and Defence Studies Centre - Canberra Papers on Strategy and Defence No.156. Canberra: Australian National University.
78. Fenner, F., Henderson, D. A., Arita, I., Ježek, Z., & Ladnyi, I. D. (1988). Smallpox and its eradication. Geneva: World Health Organization.
79. Gross, M. L. (2006). Bioethics and armed conflict: Moral dilemmas of medicine and war. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
80. Henderson, D. A., Inglesby, T. V., & O'Toole, T. (Eds.) (2002). Bioterrorism: Guidelines for medical and public health management. Chicago, IL: JAMA and Archives Journals.
81. Kitcher, P. (2001). Science, truth, and democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.
82. Knezo, G. J. (2003). Federal security controls on scientific and technical information: History and current controversy. New York: Novinka Books.
83. Kolata, G. (2001, First published 1999). Flu: The story of the great influenza pandemic of 1918 and the search for the virus that caused it. London: Pan Books.
84. Layne, S. P., Beugelsdijk, T. J., Kumar, C., & Patel, N. (Eds.) (2001). Fire power in the lab. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.
85. Miller, J., Engelberg, S., & Broad, W. (2001). Germs: The ultimate weapon. London: Simon & Schuster.
86. Miller, S. (2008). Terrorism and counter-terrorism: Ethics and liberal democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.
87. Moreno, J. D. (Ed.) (2003). In the wake of terror. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
88. Preston, R. (2003). The demon in the freezer: The terrifying truth about the threat from bioterrorism. London: Headline.
89. Regis, Ed (2000). The biology of doom. New York: First Owl Books.
90. Schweber, S. S. (2000). In the shadow of the bomb: Bethe, Oppenheimer, and the moral responsibility of the scientist. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
91. Stone, G. R. (2004). Perilous times. London: W. W. Norton.
92. Tucker, J. B. (2001). Scourge: The once and future threat of smallpox. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
93. Committee on Advances in Technology, the Prevention of Their Application to Next Generation Biowarfare Threats, National Research Council (2005). An international perspective on advancing technologies and strategies for managing dual-use risks: Report of a workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 94.
94. Committee on Advances in Technology, the Prevention of Their Application to Next Generation Biowarfare Threats, National Research Council (2006). Globalization, biosecurity, and the future of the life sciences. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
95. Committee on Balancing Scientific Openness, National Security, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine (2000). Balancing scientific openness and national security controls at the nation's nuclear weapons laboratories. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
96. Committee on Genomics Databases for Bioterrorism Threat Agents, National Research Council (2004). Seeking security: Pathogens, open access, and genome databases. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
97. Committee on Research Standards, Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology, National Research Council (2004). Biotechnology research in the age of terrorism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
98. Committee on Science, Technology for Countering Terrorism, National Research Council (2002). Making the nation safer: The role of science and technology in countering terrorism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
99. Institute of Medicine, & National Research Council (1999). Chemical and biological terrorism: Research and development to improve civilian medical response. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
100. National Academy 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. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
101. National Research Council (2003). Countering agricultural bioterrorism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
102. National Research Council (2004). Biotechnology research in an age of terrorism. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences.
103. ABC Radio National (4 September 2005). BioWar - Background Briefing http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s1450124.htm Accessed 8 September 2005.
104. Alberts, B., Wulf, Wm. A., & Fineberg, H. (13 June 2003). Current visa restrictions interfere with US science and engineering contributions to important national needs, The National Academies http://www4.nationalacademies. org/news.nsf/isbn/s12132002?OpenDocument Accessed 10 June 2005.
105. American Medical Association (December 2004). Guidelines to prevent malevolent use of bio-medical research http://www.biosecuritycodes.org/docs/ AMA%20Code.pdf Accessed 11 May 2006.
106. BBC News (19 April 2004). Caution urged over bio research http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/ 3632349.stm Accessed 2 November 2004.
107. Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (10 April 1972). Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (Biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction http://www.opbw.org/convention/documents/btwctext.pdf Accessed 11 May 2006.
108. Central Intelligence Agency (3 November 2003). The darker bioweapons future http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/bw1103.pdf Accessed 11 May 2006.
109. Chamberlain, A. (August 2004). Select agent rules (updated), American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/spp/post911/ agents/Accessed 3 December 2004.
110. CNN (6 June 2005). Feds: Science paper a terrorist's road map http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/06/milk.terror/index.html Accessed 17 July 2005.
111. Cohen, P. (18 January 2003). Recipes for bioterror: Censoring science, NewScientist.com http://www.newscientist.com/news/print.jsp?id=ns99993266 Accessed 2 November 2004.
112. Dayton, L. (27 October 2004). Scientists warn of 'Ethnic Weapons', The Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au (generic URL) Accessed 27 October 2004.
113. Federation of American Scientists (November 2002). Draft recommendations for a code of conduct for biodefense programs http://www.fas.org/bwc/papers/ code.pdf Accessed 30 May 2005.
114. Gammell, C. (25 October 2004). Biological weapons threat 'Greater Than Nuclear or Chemical', "PA" News, The Scotsman http://news.scotsman. com/(generic URL) Accessed 27 October 2004.
115. Korch, G. (9 February 2004). Leading edge of biodefense: The national biodefense analysis and countermeasures center, Lecture to the Department of Defense Pest Management Workshop, Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Bioweapons and Biodefense Freedom of Information Fund http://www.cbwtransparency.org/archive/ nbacc.pdf Accessed 26 May 2005.
116. MacKenzie, D. (29 October 2003). US develops lethal new viruses, New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/bioterrorism/bioterrorism.jsp? id=ns99994318 Accessed 2 November 2004.
117. McDonough, T. (23 February 2006). Just testing: Is the US government making anthrax bombs in Utah? Salt Lake City Weekly http://www.slweekly.com/ editorial/2006/feat-2006-02-23.cfm Accessed 16 May 2006.
118. Nixdorff, K., & Bender, W. (2005). Biotechnology, ethics of research and potential military spin-off, Bioterror and Bioweapons Control, Bulletin 19, International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation http://www.inesap.org/bulletin19/bul19art05.htm Accessed 28 November 2005.
119. Office of Biotechnology Activities (2005). National Institutes of Health, Frequently Asked Questions, National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity http://www.biosecurityboard.gov/faq.asp Accessed 28 November 2005.
120. Petro, J. B. (2005). Intelligence support to the life science community: Mitigating threats from bioterrorism, Central Intelligence Agency http://www.cia.gov.csi/studies/vol48no3/article06.html Accessed 12 August 2005.
121. Roos, R. (6 November 2003). Scientists research antidotes to super mousepox virus, University of Minnesota http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/ content/bt/smallpox/news/nov0603mousepox.html Accessed 8 November 2003.
122. Ruppe, D. (3 February 2006). US army grenade patent changed, Global Security Newswire http://www.nti.org/d-newswire/issues/2006/1/31/76D99711-ECA8- 4EA9-A2C2-278FCBD1159D.html Accessed 30 April 2006.
123. Select Agent Program (2005). The centers for disease control and prevention http://www.cdc.gov/od/sap/overview.htm Accessed 17 July 2005.
124. Shane, S. (27 June 2004). Bioterror fight may spawn new risks, Baltimore Sun http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.biodefense27jun27, 0, 6098679.story Accessed 29 June 2004.
125. Sydney Morning Herald (12 July 2002). Scientists make polio virus using net recipe http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/12/1026185100298.htm Accessed 12 July 2002.
126. The Associated Press (10 September 2004). Panel: Germ data benefits exceed risk, Newsday. com http://www.newsday.com (generic URL) Accessed 13 September 2004.
127. The InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (7 November 2005). IAP statement on biosecurity http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=17463 Accessed 11 May 2006.
128. The Royal Society - Media Release (19 April 2004). Research should be vetted to prevent biological weapons development http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/ templates/press/releasedetails.cfm?file=521.txt Accessed 2 November 2004.
129. The Royal Society - Policy Statement (13 December 2004). Do no harm: Reducing the potential for the misuse of life science research http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?tip=0&id=2830 Accessed 2 June 2005.
130. The Royal Society - Press Release (1 December 2005). International scientists call to do no harm http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id= 3949&printer=1 Accessed 20 April 2006.
131. The Sunshine Project (October 2004). Mandate for failure: The state of institutional biosafety committees in an age of biological weapons research http://www.sunshine-project.org/biodefense/tspibc.pdf Accessed 10 June 2005.
132. The Sunshine Project (4 November 2004). High containment and other facilities of the US bio-defense program http://www.sunshine-project.org/ biodefense/Accessed 5 July 2005.
133. US Department of Health and Human Services - News Release (4 March 2004). HHS will lead government-wide effort to enhance biosecurity in "Dual Use" research http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/20040304.html Accessed 27 May 2005.
134. US Department of Health and Human Services - Fact Sheet (21 July 2004). HHS fact sheet- project bioshield http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2004pres/ 20040721b.html Accessed 27 June 2006.
135. US Department of Homeland Security (24 February 2005). Fact sheet: National biodefense analysis and countermeasures center http://www.dhs.gov/ dhspublic/display?content=4336 Accessed 13 April 2005.
136. US Department of State (30 August 2005). Adherence to and compliance with arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament agreements and commitments http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rpt/51977.htm#chapter6 Accessed 22 December 2005.
137. Westphal, S. P. (17 July 2002). Ebola virus could be synthesised, New Scientist http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2555 Accessed 8 June 2005.
138. Wilson, J. (22 April 2004). Preventing test-tube terrorism, The Guardian Review http://education.guardian.co.uk/print/0, 3858, 4906769-110865, 00.html Accessed 28 April 2004.
139. World Health Organization - Media Release (20 May 2005). Establishing smallpox vaccine reserve http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2005/np- wha02/en/index.html Accessed 10 June 2005.
140. Wright, S. (November/December 2004). Taking biodefense too far, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2004/nd04/nd04wright. html Accessed 1 November 2004.
141. Altman, L. (21 May 2005). WHO moves toward allowing smallpox gene experiment, New York Times, A6.
142. Anonymous (2001). US approves development of enhanced anthrax. Arms Control Today, 31(9), 26.
143. Australian Government (2005). Weapons of mass destruction: Australia's role in fighting proliferation. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
144. Australian Safeguards, Non-Proliferation Office (2005). Annual report 2004-2005. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
145. Borrie, J. (February 2005). The dual-use dilemma in life science research: The approach of the international committee of the Red Cross, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) 'for comment' paper.
146. British Medical Association (1999). Biotechnology, weapons and humanity. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
147. British Medical Association (2004). Biotechnology, weapons and humanity II. London: British Medical Association.
148. Cohen, P. (April 2004). The individual and collective roles scientists can play in strengthening international treaties. The Royal Society - Policy Document.
149. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development (1975). Production and stockpiling of bacteriological (Biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction (entered into force 26 March 1975) Available at: http://www.nuclearthreatinitiative.org/e-research/official-docs/inventory/pdfs/ btwc.pdf.
150. Guidance for the Operation of Biological Resource Centres (BRCs) Part 3: Institutional biosecurity programme for BRCs - Discussion Paper (17 November 2005). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
151. McLeish, C. A. (2003). Reactions to self-censorship, Working Paper given at the 20th Pugwash workshop study group on the implementation of the CBW conventions: The BWC intersessional process towards the sixth review conference and beyond. Geneva, Switzerland, 8-9 November 2003.
152. Miller, J., Engelberg, S., & Broad, W. (4 September 2001). US germ warfare research pushes treaty limits, New York Times, A1.
153. Mordini, E. (April 2004). Conclusions of the international conference on ethical implications of research into the prevention of bioterrorism, Bioethical implications of globalisation processes - Policy Paper No 1, Conference organised by European Commission, DG Research, Directorate E: Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food.
154. Pearson, G. S., & Dando, M. R. (Eds.) (September 2004). Towards a life sciences code: Countering the threats from biological weapons, Strengthening the biological weapons convention - briefing paper No 13 (Second Series). Bradford: Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford.
155. Pearson, G. S., & Dando, M. R. (Eds.) (November 2004). A code of conduct for the life sciences: A practical approach, Strengthening the biological weapons convention - briefing paper No 15 (Second Series). Bradford: Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford.
156. Pollack, A. (12 July 2002). Scientists create a live polio virus. New York Times, A1.
157. Smith, D. (29 December 2003). Call to stop deadly viruses getting into wrong hands. Sydney Morning Herald, 5.
158. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute - Fact Sheet (November 2001). Biotechnology and the future of the biological and toxin weapons convention.
159. The Royal Society- Policy Document (2005). The role of codes of conduct in preventing the misuse of scientific research.
160. Tucker, J. B., & Zilinskas, R. A. (Eds.) (2002). The 1971 smallpox epidemic in Aralsk, Kazakhstan, and the Soviet Biological Warfare Program, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Occasional Paper No. 9, Monterey. California: Monterey Institute of International Studies.
161. US Department of Health and Human Services (January 2003). NIAID biodefense research agenda for category B and C priority pathogens. NIH Publication No. 03-5313.
162. US Department of Health and Human Services (4 March 2004). National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity Charter.
163. US Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology (1998). Militarily Critical Technologies List (MCTL), Part 2: Weapons of mass destruction technologies.
164. WHO Advisory Committee on Variola Virus Research (2006). Report of the seventh meeting, 10-11 November 2005. Geneva: WHO.