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

  • Ilaria Anna ColussiEmail author
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 78)


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’.


  1. Alexy, R. (2003). Constitutional rights, balancing, and rationality. Ratio Juris, 2(16), 131–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Browning, C. R. (2005). The origins of the final solution. The evolution of Nazi Jewish policy, September 1939–March 1942. London: Arrow.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chet Tremmel, J. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of intergenerational justice. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Cole, D. (2002). Enemy aliens. Stanford Law Review, 54, 953–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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
  11. Cullet, P. (1995). Definition of an environmental right in a human rights context. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 13, 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dando, M. (2009). Dual-use education for life scientists? Ideas for Peace and Security, Disarmament Forum, 10, 41–44.Google Scholar
  13. Editorial. (2012). Publishing risky research. Nature, 485(5), 3.Google Scholar
  14. Enserink, M. (2015). Dutch appeals court dodges decision on hotly debated H5N1 papers. Science. Accessed February 25, 2015.
  15. Forge, J. (2010). A note on the definition of “Dual Use”. Science of Engineering Ethics, 1(16), 111–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frosini, T. (Ed.). (2008). Teoremi e problemi di diritto costituzionale. Milano: Giuffré.Google Scholar
  17. Gostin, L. O., & Lazzarini, Z. (1997). Human Rights and Public Health in the AIDS Pandemic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Greenfieldboyce, N. (2012). Bird flu scientist has applied for permit to export research. NPR. Accessed March 4, 2015.
  19. Herfst, S., et al. (2012). Airborne transmission of influenza A/H5N1 virus between ferrets. Science, 336, 1533–1541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hervey, T. K., & McHale, J. V. (2004). Health law and the European union. Cambridge, UK: Paperback.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Katz, J. (1972). Experimentation with human beings. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  24. Kuhlau, F., Eriksson, S., Evers, K., & Höglund, A. T. (2008). Taking due care: Moral obligations in dual use research. Bioethics, 22(9), 477–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lauren, P. G. (2003). The evolution of international human rights: Visions seen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  26. Malakoff, D. (2012). Breaking news: NSABB reverses position on flu papers. Science Insider. Accessed March 2, 2015.
  27. Martin, B. (2001). Science: contemporary censorship. In D. Jones (Ed.), Censorship: A world encyclopedia (Vol. 4, pp. 2167–2170). London: Fitzroy Dearborn.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, S. E., & Sagan, S. D. (2009). Nuclear Power without Nuclear Proliferation? Daedalus, 138(4), 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Modugno, F. (1995). I «nuovi diritti» nella giurisprudenza costituzionale. Torino: Giappichelli.Google Scholar
  33. National Research Council. (2004). Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  34. Rhodes, R. (1986). The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  35. Riedel, E. (2009). The Human Right to Health: Conceptual Foundations. Accessed 16 February 2015.
  36. 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
  37. Salvi, M. (2002). What Responsibility for Science. Law and the Human Genome Review, 17, 125–134.Google Scholar
  38. Santosuosso, A. (2016). Diritto, scienza, nuove tecnologie. Milano: Wolters Kluwer-CEDAM, 297–382.Google Scholar
  39. Santosuosso, A., Sellaroli, V., & Fabio, E. (2007). What constitutional protection for freedom of scientific research? Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(6), 342–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. Selgelid, M. J. (2007). A tale of two studies. Ethics, bioterrorism, and the censorship of science. Hastings Center Report, 37(3), 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trevan, T. (2012). Do not censor science in the name of biosecurity. Nature, 486(7403), 295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tumpey, T. M., et al. (2005). Characterization of the Reconstructed 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus. Science, 310(5745), 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2009). The dual-use dilemma. London: Parliamentary Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LiegeLiegeBelgium

Personalised recommendations