Balancing the advancement of science with safeguarding humanity
The world faces significant vulnerability to devastating pandemics, exacerbated by technological advancements and increasing global connectivity, heightening the risk of impactful events. Recent decades have showcased extraordinary progress across biomedical engineering fields, bringing numerous benefits but also highlighting the dual-use dilemma: research intended for beneficial purposes that could also be misused, either intentionally or not. The widespread internet access and the push for open science further expose potentially dangerous information to those with malevolent intentions. Concerns over the ease of misuse, accentuated by growing geopolitical instability, are leading to calls for deliberate misuse to be taken more seriously.
Historically, several incidents have prompted scientists and stakeholders to advocate for better governance of sensitive research. Christian Enemark, in “Biosecurity Dilemmas: Dreaded Diseases, Ethical Responses, and the Health of Nations,” outlines the intricate decision-making process involving trade-offs such as ‘protect or proliferate’ and ‘secure or stifle’. The dilemma is further complicated by the contrast between laboratories conducting research for beneficial purposes and those that could use similar methods for creating bioweapons, as discussed in David Hoffmann’s “The Dead Hand” and Ken Alibek’s “Biohazard.” Despite the Soviet Union’s ratification of the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972 and their assurances of downsizing their bioweapons arsenal, they concurrently pursued the development of hazardous biological weapons.
Given the significant potential for misuse of dual-use research, there’s a pressing need for enhanced governance measures. Such measures are crucial not only for the progression of science but also for safeguarding humanity.