Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Biolaw and ‘the Dual-Use Dilemma’: The Freedom of Scientific Research in Relationship with ‘Traditional’ and Emerging Sciences and Technologies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century

Part of the book series: International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine ((LIME,volume 78))

Abstract

This chapter aims to legally explore the dual-use dilemma , as referred to two areas: one, which is more ‘traditional’, is the field of nuclear science and technology, and the other one, which is a new emerging area, is synthetic biology . One important conclusion will be that the freedom of scientific research , which is central in this context, has to be protected, but at the same time the other rights and freedoms at stake cannot be ‘suppressed’ or ‘sacrificed’.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for instance, case Baldeón García v. Peru Case. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, paragraph 81; Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia Case. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paragraph 111.

  2. 2.

    The case law of the Strasbourg Court about the right to life is very broad. Just to mention a few meaningful judgments , see: (a) about the killing by state agents, case McCann v. United Kingdom n. 18984/91, 27 September 1995; (b) Find it in your Library about the positive obligation for the State to protect life , case L.C.B. v United Kingdom n. 23413/94, 9 June 1998; (c) about death penalty, case Soering v. United Kingdom, n. 14038/88, 7 July 1989; (d) about the issues as regard the beginning of life , case Vo. v. France, n. 5324/00, 8 July 2004; case S.H. and others v. Austria, n. 57813/00, 1 April 2010; case Costa e Pavan v. Italy, n. 54270/10, 28 August 2012; (e) about the end of life see case Sanles v. Spain, n. 48335/99, 20 October 2000; Pretty v. United Kingdom, n. 2346/02, 29 April 2002; Haas v. Switzerland, n. 31322/07, 20 January 2011.

  3. 3.

    See case Lubuto v. Zambia (Communication 390/1990) about death penalty; case Suarez de Guerrero v. Colombia (Communication 45/1979) about police shooting; case Dermit Barbato v. Uruguay (Communication 84/1981) about deaths in custody.

  4. 4.

    See case of Kazeem Aminu v. Nigeria (205/97).

References

  • Alexy, R. (2003). Constitutional rights, balancing, and rationality. Ratio Juris, 2(16), 131–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atlas, R. M., & Dando, M. R. (2006). The dual-use dilemma for the life sciences: Perspectives, conundrums, and global solutions. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 3(4), 276–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bin, R. (2005). Diritti e fraintendimenti: il nodo della rappresentanza. In AA.VV., Scritti in onore di G.Berti (Vol. I). Napoli: Jovene, pp. 345 ss.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browning, C. R. (2005). The origins of the final solution. The evolution of Nazi Jewish policy, September 1939–March 1942. London: Arrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D., & Ledford, H. (2012). U.S. biosecurity board revises stance on mutant-flu studies. Decision comes one day after release of new guidelines for dual-use research. Nature. Accessed February 21, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cello, J. P., & Wimmer, E. (2002). Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: Generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science, 297(5583), 1016–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chet Tremmel, J. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of intergenerational justice. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casonato, C. (2014). Evidence based law, Spunti di riflessione sul diritto comparato delle scienze della vita. Bolaw Journal, Rivista di Biodiritto, 1, 179–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, D. (2002). Enemy aliens. Stanford Law Review, 54, 953–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colussi, I. A. (2014). Synthetic biology and the freedom of scientific research: a fundamental freedom in front of a new emerging technology. Review of Law and Human Genome, Special number, 277–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullet, P. (1995). Definition of an environmental right in a human rights context. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 13, 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dando, M. (2009). Dual-use education for life scientists? Ideas for Peace and Security, Disarmament Forum, 10, 41–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Editorial. (2012). Publishing risky research. Nature, 485(5), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enserink, M. (2015). Dutch appeals court dodges decision on hotly debated H5N1 papers. Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/dutch-appeals-court-dodges-decision-hotly-debated-h5n1-papers. Accessed February 25, 2015.

  • Forge, J. (2010). A note on the definition of “Dual Use”. Science of Engineering Ethics, 1(16), 111–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frosini, T. (Ed.). (2008). Teoremi e problemi di diritto costituzionale. Milano: Giuffré.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gostin, L. O., & Lazzarini, Z. (1997). Human Rights and Public Health in the AIDS Pandemic. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenfieldboyce, N. (2012). Bird flu scientist has applied for permit to export research. NPR. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/04/24/151292681/bird-flu-scientist-has-applied-for-permit-to-export-research. Accessed March 4, 2015.

  • Herfst, S., et al. (2012). Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. Science, 336, 1533–1541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hervey, T. K., & McHale, J. V. (2004). Health law and the European union. Cambridge, UK: Paperback.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 486(7403), 420–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, R., et al. (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, 1205–1210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. (1972). Experimentation with human beings. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlau, F., Eriksson, S., Evers, K., & Höglund, A. T. (2008). Taking due care: Moral obligations in dual use research. Bioethics, 22(9), 477–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauren, P. G. (2003). The evolution of international human rights: Visions seen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malakoff, D. (2012). Breaking news: NSABB reverses position on flu papers. Science Insider. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/04/breaking-us-accepts-nsabbrecommendation-publish-h5n1-flu-papers. Accessed March 2, 2015.

  • Martin, B. (2001). Science: contemporary censorship. In D. Jones (Ed.), Censorship: A world encyclopedia (Vol. 4, pp. 2167–2170). London: Fitzroy Dearborn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrills, J. E. (2007). Environmental rights. In D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée, & E. Hey (Eds.), Oxford handbook of international environmental law (pp. 663–680). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, Q. (2013). Balancing the Freedom of Academia and Security Interests: An Impossible Objective? Paper presented at the “Non-proliferation versus fundamental rights and scientific freedom - a Debating Forum “Science Meets Practice.” Alpbach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S., & Selgelid, M. J. (2007). Ethical and Philosophical Consideration of the Dual-use Dilemma in the Biological Sciences. Science Engineering Ethics, 13, 523–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, S. E., & Sagan, S. D. (2009). Nuclear Power without Nuclear Proliferation? Daedalus, 138(4), 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Modugno, F. (1995). I «nuovi diritti» nella giurisprudenza costituzionale. Torino: Giappichelli.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2004). Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. (1986). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedel, E. (2009). The Human Right to Health: Conceptual Foundations. https://www.eda.admin.ch/content/dam/eda/en/documents/topics/01_453_Riedel.pdf. Accessed 16 February 2015.

  • Romeo Casabona, C. (2011). Bioderecho y Bioética. In C. Romeo Casabona (Dir.), Enciclopedia de Bioderecho y Bioética (pp. 187–205). Granada: Editorial Comares.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvi, M. (2002). What Responsibility for Science. Law and the Human Genome Review, 17, 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso, A. (2016). Diritto, scienza, nuove tecnologie. Milano: Wolters Kluwer-CEDAM, 297–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso, A., Sellaroli, V., & Fabio, E. (2007). What constitutional protection for freedom of scientific research? Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(6), 342–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, M., & Giersch, G. (2011). DNA Synthesis and Security. In M. Campbell (Ed.), DNA microarrays, synthesis and synthetic DNA (pp. 285–300). New York: Nova Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweber, S. S. (2000). In the shadow of the Bomb: Bethe, Oppenheimer, and the moral responsibility of the scientist. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selgelid, M. J. (2007). A tale of two studies. Ethics, bioterrorism, and the censorship of science. Hastings Center Report, 37(3), 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevan, T. (2012). Do not censor science in the name of biosecurity. Nature, 486(7403), 295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tumpey, T. M., et al. (2005). Characterization of the Reconstructed 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus. Science, 310(5745), 77–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2009). The dual-use dilemma. London: Parliamentary Office.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Liege, Liege, Belgium

    Ilaria Anna Colussi

Authors
  1. Ilaria Anna Colussi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilaria Anna Colussi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. International Network of Biolaw, Washington, DC, USA

    Erick Valdés

  2. Center for Bioethics, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile

    Juan Alberto Lecaros

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Colussi, I.A. (2019). Biolaw and ‘the Dual-Use Dilemma’: The Freedom of Scientific Research in Relationship with ‘Traditional’ and Emerging Sciences and Technologies. In: Valdés, E., Lecaros, J. (eds) Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine, vol 78. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05903-3_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation