Responsible Stewardship: Choices and Challenges in Preventing the Malign Use of the Life Sciences Brian Rappert

Responsible Stewardship Statements World Medical Association (2002) Declaration of Washington on Biological Weapons Appeal of International Committee of the Red Cross (2002) National Research Council (2003) Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism Statement of Journal Editors and Authors Group (2003) World Health Organization (2005) Governing Life Science Research – Opportunities and Risk for Public Health BBSRC, MRC and Wellcome Trust (2005) Managing Risks of Misuse Associated with Grant Funding Activities InterAcademy Panel (2005) Statement on Biosecurity BTWC (2003 & 2005) Report of the Meeting of States Parties

Emerging Prevailing Elements Of Responsible Stewardship 1. Self-governance by scientific communities - e.g., Asilomar & rDNA Guidelines v UK Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 2. Stay ahead of threats by ‘running faster’, but initiate mechanisms for scientific expert predicative risk- benefit assessment of individual research proposals, experiments, and publications. 3. Engage expertise and energies of scientists and others associated with the life sciences

Responsible Stewardship & Professional Codes InterAcademy Panel (2005) Statement on Biosecurity BTWC (2005) Report of the Meeting of States Parties International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (2005) Code of Ethics International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2005) The Building Blocks for a Code of Conduct for Scientists International Union of Microbiological Societies (2005) Code of Ethics for the Prevention of the Misuse of Scientific Knowledge, Research & Resources NSABB (2006) Considerations in Developing a Code of Conduct for Dual Use Research in the Life Science

Some Questions About Code Initiatives With some Further Engagement Fostered, What Now? More Prelude than Practice? - From code  principles/considerations for a code IAP, ICRC, ICGEB, BTWC, NSABB Reiterate or Clarify? Extend or Consolidate? - still open questions, but… What about Education and Awareness Raising Role?

Statements Of The Need For Risk-Benefit Assessment National Research Council (US) (2003) Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism Statement of Journal Editors and Authors Group (2003) World Health Organization (2005) Governing Life Science Research – Opportunities and Risk for Public Health BBSRC, MRC and Wellcome Trust (2005) Managing Risks of Misuse Associated with Grant Funding Activities American Medical Association (2005) Guidelines to Prevent Malevolent Use of Biomedical Research NSABB (2006) Draft Criteria for Dual Use Research of Concern

Experience With Expert Predicative Risk-Benefit Assessment Of Individual Research Activities Statement of Journal Editors and Authors Group: process agreed for reviewing, modifying, and perhaps even rejecting research articles where ‘the potential harm of publication outweighs the potential societal benefits.’ Results (???): No publication stopped yet in any journals; 1/5000 needing security assessment (ASM editorial group); couple modified - Wellcome Trust never refused an application or imposed publication restrictions because of dual use concerns Sequencing and reconstruction of 1918 Flu virus: NSABB, Science, Nature agree benefits outweighed the risk

Reflections On Experience With Expert Predicative Risk-Benefit Assessment Why research of concern everywhere and nowhere?: Lack of appreciation, absence of issue, failure to detect? How to weigh?: Expert based v. metric based; Balance v. precautionary approach How not to impose burdens yet change thinking? Other questions: - What gets funded? - What about the development of (sub-) fields rather than individual activities?

Some Questions About Education Ubiquitous underpinning, but… - Education as ‘implanting’ or ‘eliciting’? - Assuming the need for some challenging: Are ‘regulations’ and moral imagination co-dependent or at odds? - If there is a need for ‘the public understanding of science’, is there also a need for ‘scientists understanding of the public’ or ‘scientists understanding of science’?