Governing 'dual-use' research in Canada: A policy review

Science and Public Policy

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 76-93

  Williams Jones, Bryn ^a   Olivier, Catherine ^a   Smith, Elise ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Canada; Dual use research; Governance; Policy; Regulations

Indexed keywords

GOVERNANCE APPROACH; INNOVATION; INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION; INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS; POLICY APPROACH; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK;

CANADA;

EID: 84897868960     PISSN: 03023427     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/scipol/sct038     Document Type: Article

References (106)

1. American Medical Association. (2004) 'Guidelines to Prevent Malevolent Use of Biomedical Research', accessed 18 June 2013.
2. Atlas, R. M. (2009) 'Responsible conduct by life scientists in an age of terrorism', Science and Engineering Ethics, 15: 293-301.
3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Medical Research Council and The Wellcome Trust. (2005) 'Managing Risks of Misuse Associated with Grant Funding Activities: A joint Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust Policy Statement', accessed 18 June 2013.
4. Bell, E., Mathieu, G. and Racine, E. (2008) 'The promises of deep brain stimulation in psychiatry', Can Psychiatry Aujourd'hui, 4: 1124-8.
5. Bell, E., Mathieu, G. and Racine, E. (2009) 'Preparing the ethical future of deep brain stimulation'. Surgical Neurology, 72: 577-86.
6. Berns, K. I., Casadevall, A., Cohen, M. L., Ehrlich, S. A. et al. (2012) 'Adaptations of avian flu virus are a cause for concern', Science, 335: 660-1.
7. Bezuidenhout, L. (2013) 'Data sharing and dual-use issues', Science and Engineering Ethics, 19: 83-92.
8. Bezuidenhout, L. (2012) 'Research infrastructures, policies and the "web of prevention": The ethical implications of inadequate research environments', Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 28: 19-30.
9. Bollaert, C. and Whitby, S. (2012) 'Online applied dual-use biosecurity education: A case study from the University of Bradford', Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 28: 59-71.
10. Buchanan, A. and Kelley, M. C. (2013) 'Biodefence and the production of knowledge: Rethinking the problem', Journal of Medical Ethics, 39: 195-204.
11. Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. (2009) 'Laws and Regulations', (updated 7 November 2011), accessed 18 June 2013.
12. Center for Science Technology and Security Policy. (2012) 'Workforce', accessed 18 June 2013.
13. Controlled Goods Directorate Administration. (2001) 'The Controlled Goods Program', accessed 18 June 2013.
14. Cochrane, R. C. (1978) The National Academy of Sciences: The First Hundred Years, 1863-1963. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, accessed 18 June 2013.
15. Condominas, G. (1965) L'Exotique est quotidien: Sar Luk, Vietnam central. Paris: Pion.
16. Cozzarelli, N. R. (2003) 'PNAS policy on publication of sensitive material in the life sciences', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100: 1463.
17. D'Agostino, M. and Martin, G. (2009) 'The bioscience revolution and the biological weapons threat: Levers and interventions', Globalization and Health, 5, accessed 18 June 2013.
18. D'Souza, C. and Taghian, M. (2010) 'Integrating precautionary principle approach in sustainable decision-making process: A proposal for a conceptual framework', Journal of Macromarketing, 30: 192-9.
19. Davidson, N. and Koppelman, B. (2008) Royal Society Activities on Reducing the Risk of the Misuse of Scientific Research, RS Policy Document 17/08. London: Royal Society, accessed 18 June 2013.
20. Davis, I. (2002) The Regulation of Arms and Dual-Use Exports: Germany, Sweden and the UK. Oxford, UK: OUP and Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
21. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012) United States Government Policy for Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern. Washington, DC: US Government, accessed 18 June 2013.
22. Enserink, M. (2004) 'Tiptoeing around Pandora's box', Science, 305: 594-5.
23. Enserink, M. (2012) 'Public at last, H5N1 study offers insight into virus's possible path to pandemic', Science, 336: 1494-7, accessed 18 June 2013.
24. Enserink, M. and Cohen, J. (2012) 'One of two hotly debated H5N1 papers finally published', Science, 2 May 2012, accessed 18 June 2013.
25. European Union. (2006) 'EU Action Plan on Biological and Toxin Weapons, Complementary to the EU Joint Action in Support of the BTWC', C57-2 (9.3.2006 edn.; European Union: Official Journal of the European Union).
26. European Union. (2009) 'Community Regime for the Control of Exports, Transfer, Brokering and Transit of Dual-Use Items', Council Regulation No 428/2009 (European Union, L 134/2; EU: Official Journal of the European Union).
27. Evans, N. G. (2010) Dual-Use Bioethics: The Nuclear Connection. United Kingdom: Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), an Australian Research Council Special Research Centre, accessed 18 June 2013.
28. Fergusson, I. F. (2009) The Export Administration Act: Evolution, Provisions, and Debate, Washington, DC: CRS Report for Congress, accessed 18 June 2013.
29. Fidler, D. (2012) 'Risky research and human health: The influenza H5N1 research controversy and international law', American Society of International Law, 16, accessed 18 June 2013.
30. Fischer, B. A. and Zigmond, M. J. (2010) 'The essential nature of sharing in science', Science and Engineering Ethics, 16: 783-99.
31. Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. (1994) 'Export Controls on Nuclear and Nuclear-related Dual-use Equipment, Materials and Related Technology', accessed 18 June 2013.
32. Fouchier, R. A. M., Herfst, S. and Osterhaus, A. D. M. E. (2012) 'Restricted data on influenza H5N1 virus transmission', Science, 335: 662-3.
33. Fuhrmann, M. (2008) 'Exporting mass destruction? The determinants of dual-use trade', Journal of Peace Research, 4: 633-52.
34. Galev, T. (2003) 'Questioning the 'dual-use' concept'. Paper presented at IAS-STS Work-in-Progress Workshop, held 13 March 2003, Graz, Austria.
35. Gasson, M. N., Kosta, E. and Bowman, D. M. (2012) 'Human ICT implants: From invasive to pervasive'. In: Gasson, M. N., Kosta, E. and Bowman, D. M. (eds), Human ICT Implants: Technical, Legal and Ethical Considerations, pp. 1-8. The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press.
36. Gene Technology Ethics Committee. (2006) National Framework for the Development of Ethical Principles in Gene Technology. Canberra, Australia: Department of Health and Ageing, Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, accessed 18 June 2013.
37. Government of Canada. (2012) 'S&T Data 2010: Canada and the World', accessed 18 June 2013.
38. Government of Canada (Science Technology and Innovation Council). (2011) State of the Nation 2010 -Canada's Science, Technology and Innovation System. Ottawa, ON: Science, Technology and Innovation Council Secretariat, accessed 18 June 2013.
39. Graham, B., Talent, J. M. and Allison, G. T. (2008) World at Risk: The Report of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism. New York: Vintage Books.
40. Green, S. K., Taub, S., Morin, K. and Higginson, D. (2006) 'Guidelines to prevent malevolent use of biomedical research', Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 15: 432-9.
41. Grip, L. (2011) Mapping the European Union's Institutional Actors Related to WMD Non-proliferation 1: EU Non-Proliferation Consortium), pp. 1-20, accessed 18 June 2013.
42. Grisé , A. (2005) La valorisation de la recherche universitaire -Clarification conceptuelle. Quebec, Canada: Secrétariat du Conseil de la science et de la technologie, accessed 18 June 2013.
43. Health Canada. (2005) 'Canada's Biotechnology Strategy', accessed 18 June 2013.
44. Health Canada. (2008) 'Canada's Food and Drugs Act & Regulations' (updated 7 July 2008), accessed 18 June 2013.
45. Herfst, S., Schrauwen, E. J., Linster, M., Chutinimitkul, S. et al. (2012) 'Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets', Science, 336: 1534-41.
46. Hermansson, H. and Hansson, S. O. (2007) 'A three-party model tool for ethical risk analysis', Risk Management, 9: 129-44.
47. Homan, R. (1991) The Ethics of Social Research. London: Longman.
48. Imai, M. et al. (2012) 'Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets', Nature, advance online publication, accessed 18 June 2013.
49. Industry Canada. (2008) 'Performance Report: For the Period Ending March 31, 2006', (updated 29 October 2010) accessed 18 June 2013.
50. Industry Canada. (2009a) 'Electronic Commerce in Canada; International Forums -Cybersecurity', (updated 19 August 2008), accessed 18 June 2013.
51. Industry Canada. (2009b) 'Electronic Commerce in Canada; Cryptography', (updated 6 March 2009), accessed 18 June 2013.
52. Industry Canada. (2009c) 'Electronic Commerce in Canada; Part 2: Cryptography Policy in Canada Today', (updated 10 March 2009), accessed 18 June 2013.
53. Industry Canada. (2013) 'Aerospace and Defence', (updated 30 January 2013), accessed 18 June 2013.
54. Interagency Panel on Research Ethics. (2010) Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, accessed 18 June 2013.
55. Jones, N. L. (2007) 'A code of ethics for the life sciences', Science and Engineering Ethics, 13: 25-43.
56. Keim, B. (2012a) 'Controversy continues after engineered-birdflu study published', Wired, 2 May 2012, accessed 18 June 2013.
57. Keim, B. (2012b) 'Lab security standards raise chances of mutantbird-flu catastrophe', Wired, 2 May 2012, accessed 18 June 2013.
58. Kelland, K. and Nebehay, S. (2012) 'Decision time for researchers of deadly bird', Reuters, 14 February 2012, accessed 18 June 2013.
59. Kuhlau, F., Eriksson, S., Evers, K. and Hoglund, A. T. (2008) 'Taking due care: Moral obligations in dual use research', Bioethics, 22: 477-87.
60. Kuhlau, F., Höglund, A. T., Evers, K. and Eriksson, S. (2011) 'A precautionary principle for dual use research in the life sciences', Bioethics, 25: 1-8.
61. Kuzma, J. and Besley, J. C. (2008) 'Ethics of risk analysis and regulatory review: From bio-to nanotechnology', NanoEthics, 2: 149-62.
62. Lee, R. M. (1993) Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. London: Sage.
63. MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (eds) (1999) The Social Shaping of Technology, 2nd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
64. Malakoff, D. (2012) 'US agencies to start acreening biomedical proposals for dual use', Science, 336: 21.
65. McLeish, C. and Nightingale, P. (2005) 'The impact of dual use controls on UK science: Results from a pilot study', SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, 132, accessed 18 June 2013.
66. Memorial University of Newfoundland. (2008) 'Controlled Goods', accessed 18 June 2013.
67. Miller, S. (2009) 'Ethics engagement of the dual-use dilemma: Progress and potential'. In: Rappert, B. (ed.) Education and Ethics in the Life Sciences: Strengthening the Prohibition of Biological Weapons, pp. 23-43. Canberra: ANU E Press, accessed 18 June 2013.
68. Miller, S. and Selgelid, M. J. (2007) 'Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences', Science and Engineering Ethics, 13: 523-80.
69. Molas Gallart, J. (2002) 'Coping with dual-use: A challenge for European research policy', JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 40: 155-65.
70. National Research Council. (2004) Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism (Fink Report). Washington, DC: National Academy Press, accessed 18 June 2013.
71. National Research Council and American Association for the Advancement of Science. (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: National Academy Press, accessed 18 June 2013.
72. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. (2007) Proposed Framework for the Oversight of Dual Use Life Sciences Research: Strategies for Minimizing the Potential Misuse of Research Information. Washington, DC: NSABB, accessed 18 June 2013.
73. National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity. (2012) Enhancing Responsible Science; Considerations for the Development and Dissemination of Codes of Conduct for Dual Use Research. Washington, DC: NSABB, accessed 18 June 2013.
74. Neylon, C. and Wu, S. (2009) 'Open science: Tools, approaches, and implications', Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, 14: 540-544, accessed 18 June 2013.
75. Ntafis, V., Patrikakis, C. Z., Fragkiadaki, E. G. and Xylouri-Fragkiadaki, E. M. (2008) 'RFID application in animal monitoring'. In: Yan, L., Zang, Y., Yang, L. T. and Ning, H. (eds), The Internet of Things: From RFID to the Next-Generation Pervasive Networked Systems, pp. 165-84. Boca Raton, FL: Auerbach Publications.
76. Nuclear Suppliers Group. (2012), accessed 18 June 2013.
77. OECD. (2012) 'Science and technology: Biosafety -BioTrack', accessed 18 June 2013.
78. Office of Export Control Cooperation. (2012) 'Overview of the U.S export control system', , accessed 18 June 2013.
79. Office of Transnational Issues. (2006) The Darker Bioweapons Future, OTI SF 2003-108. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, accessed 18 June 2013.
80. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2009) 'The dual-use dilemma', Postnotes, 340, accessed 18 June 2013.
81. Pathogen Regulation Directorate. (2004) Laboratory Biosafety Guidelines, 3rd edn, 5 March 2012. Ottawa: Health Canada, accessed 18 June 2013.
82. Peters, M. A. (2008) 'Education and the knowledge economy'. In: Hearn, G. and Rooney, D. (eds), Knowledge Policy: Challenges for the 21st Century, pp. 27-44. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
83. Petro, J. B. (2004) 'Intelligence support to the life science community: Mitigating threats from bioterrorism', Studies in Intelligence, 48: 57-68.
84. Quirk, M. (2004) 'USA establishes advisory board for 'dual use' research', The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 4: 258.
85. Rappert, B. (2008) 'The benefits, risks, and threats of biotechnology', Science and Public Policy, 35: 37-43.
86. Resnik, D. B. (2010) 'Can scientists regulate the publication of dual use research?', Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology, 4: 1-7, accessed 18 June 2013.
87. Resnik, D. B. and Shamoo, A. E. (2005) 'Bioterrorism and the responsible conduct of biomedical research', Drug Development Research, 63: 121-33.
88. Risk Management Support Group. (2009) Risk Management Manual: Controlled Goods and/or Controlled Technologies Program RMM #507. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University, accessed 18 June 2013.
89. Robinson, J. (2012) 'Space security through the transatlantic partnership', Space Policy, 28: 61-3.
90. Salsbury, D. (2011) 'Editors must be aware of dual-use research', Science, 34: 97-8.
91. Selgelid, M. J. (2009) 'Dual-use research codes of conduct: Lessons from the life sciences', NanoEthics, 3: 175-83.
92. Shea, D. (2004) Dual-Use Biological Equipment: Difficulties in Domestic Regulation. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress, accessed 18 June 2013.
93. Somerville, M. A. and Atlas, R. M. (2005) 'Ethics: A weapon to counter bioterrorism', Science, 307: 1881-2.
94. Suk, J. E., Zmorzynska, A., Hunger, I., Biederbick, W. et al. (2011) 'Dual-use research and technological diffusion: Reconsidering the bioterrorism threat spectrum', PLoS Pathogens, 7: e1001253. accessed 18 June 2013.
95. Tri-Agencies. (2011) Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, accessed 18 June 2013.
96. UNESCO. (1974) 'Recommendation on the status of scientific researchers', in General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 17 October to 23 November 1974. UNESCO (ed.), Paris: UNESCO. accessed 18 June 2013.
97. UNESCO. (1999) 'Declaration on science and the use of scientific knowledge', in Proceedings of World Conference on Science held Budapest, Hungary, 29 June-1 July 1999, UNESCO and International Council for Science (eds). Paris: UNESCO. accessed 18 June 2013.
98. UNESCO. (2005) Towards Knowledge Societies. Paris: UNESCO, accessed 18 June 2013.
99. United Kingdom. (2001) 'Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act', Chapter 24 (UK).
100. University of Alberta. (2012) 'Travelling with field equipment', accessed 18 June 2013.
101. Van Aken, J. (2006) 'When risk outweighs benefit', EMBO Reports, 7: S10-13, accessed 18 June 2013.
102. van der Bruggen, K. (2011) 'Possibilities, intentions and threats: Dual use in the life sciences reconsidered', Science and Engineering Ethics, 18: 741-56.
103. Webster, A. (1991) Science, Technology and Society: New Directions. New York: Palgrave.
104. Weckert, J. (2007) 'An approach to nanoethics'. In: Hodge, G. A., Bowman, D. M. and Ludlow, K. (eds), New Global Frontiers in Regulation: The Age of Nanotechnology, pp. 49-66. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
105. World Health Organization. (2008) 'Research Policy and Management of Risks in Life Sciences Research for Global Health Security', Report of the meeting, 10-12 December 2007. Bangkok, Thailand. accessed 18 June 2013.
106. Wyld, D. (2010) 'Preventing the worst case scenario: An analysis of RFID technology and infant protection in hospitals', Internet Journal of Healthcare Administration, 7, accessed 18 June 2013.