Regulating dual-use research: Lessons from Israel and the United States

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, and with greater urgency since the H5N1 papers controversy (2012), dual-use research of concern (DURC) has been extensively debated by the scientific community, regulators, and the public at large. Many have raised the need to regulate DURC; however, despite the urgency of this issue, to date, only two countries have implemented specific regulations, United States and Israel (notably, China is in the final stages of creating a set of DURC-related regulations). In this paper, I have compared these policies as case studies that may benefit other countries. Therefore, the present study aimed to critically compare the DURC policies of the US and Israel and determine whether their different approaches provide a rigorous framework for the regulation of DURC. I have shown that in some aspects, they have adopted similar approaches; for example, allowing local committees to play a role in assessing the research. However, they differ in certain important aspects; for instance, the US policies have laid out a mechanism through which academic institutions and the government decide jointly on how to address risky studies, while the Israeli law places the authority solely in government hands. My aim in comparing the policies is twofold; first, to reveal the weaknesses and strengths of each policy, thereby aiding their improvement, and second, to provide those that are considering developing policies in this field an overview of what the current approaches look like, thereby enabling them to articulate their own approach while taking into account the experience gained by the US and Israel.