Dual use of biological research and the role of the scientific unions

When the Royal Society was founded 348 years ago, one of its founders, Dr. Robert Hook, stipulated that the “society should not meddle in divinity, metaphysics, morals, politics, grammar, rhetoric or logistic” (Martinich 1999). Such an approach continued through the centuries, perpetuating scientists’ detachment from human affairs and relegating them to ivory towers remote from the ultimate goal of their science, science that should be targeted to human welfare. It was once commonplace, and still can be heard, that “science is neutral”, “science has nothing to do with politics”, and “science cannot be blamed for its misapplications”. One reason for this was the difference in time between a discovery and its consequences, between scientific discovery and its applications. Such a distance favored outright absolution from responsibilities, first for the scientists who made the discovery, then by extension to all scientists. As pointed out by Joseph Rotblat in his contribution to the World Conference on Science of Budapest in 1999 (World Conference on Science 1999), not only in the academic circles, but also in the industrial sector ethical questions about the consequences of applied research were seldom raised by employers and the employees were discouraged from concerning themselves with these issues. The goal of research was just research, or profit as the case may be, and no other questions were encouraged. The immensely increased role of science in the life of the world community brought about by the great scientific discoveries has resulted in an enormous increase in the magnitude of scientific endeavor, a process of positive feedback in which success breeds further success. Thus we saw exponential growth in the number of scientists and technicians, the number of publications, and the number and size of scientific meetings. In parallel with this there has been a radical change in the methodology of scientific research, its scope, its tools, and its very nature. We can truly speak of a scientific revolution. For the field of physics, Rotblat reports that not all of the success was propitious. For example, the success of the Manhattan Project during the Second World War has been the well-known double-edged sword. Today we are facing another double-edged sword and another challenge, that of the misuse of biological technologies. These are not as expensive as physical technologies and they are simpler to implement. Furthermore, there is little protection of biological discoveries due to the need for publication, both for the realization of a scientific career and as a part of scientific progress. This urgency of publishing and the new concept of open-source publications on the one hand and the increased interest by irresponsible individuals or groups on the other make an analysis of the production, publication, and utilization of sensitive biological information imperative. Of all the scientific disciplines, the developments in biological research have possibly been the most rapid; however, parallel to the growth of technical achievements and their importance, the possibility of misusing research has increased. Some types of biological research have the potential to be employed for malevolent purposes: it is what is defined as “dual use”. Manipulating the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is important to understand their mechanism of action and to discover new and more potent antibiotics. However, the same scientific approach can lead to the production of deadly bacteria resistant to all types of antibiotics. Synthetic biology is a novel field of biological research that combines science and engineering in order to design and “synthesize” DNA molecules capable of Arch. Immunol. Ther. Exp., 2009, 57, 153–155 PL ISSN 0004-069X DOI 10.1007/s00005-009-0028-7 VARIA