Abstract
In the wake of the anthrax attacks in the US in 2001, the Biological Weapons Convention has increasingly focused its efforts on reducing the risk of bioterrorism. One of the questions that received particular attention was how to prevent the misuse of benign biological research for malign purposes. The argument is that modern biological research is rife with research that is dual-use in nature, i.e. that it can be used either for benign or malign purposes. Over the last decade, the debate has increasingly focussed on the role and responsibility of the scientific community in addressing this issue. Education in dual-use ethics has been considered as one of the major factors that can help with the dual-use problem. However, even general science ethics education is limited at the moment and presents a challenge to any lecturer. In discussing the views of Martin Heidegger and Richard Rorty’s interpretation of Heidegger, this article argues for the use of art and bioart as educational vehicles to help scientists explore their roles and responsibilities with regard to their own research and its dual-use nature.
Highlights
A Short History of Dual-UseIn 2001, directly after the events of 9/11, the US was hit by another terrorist attack: the use of the US postal service to deliver anthrax letters
These examples are not exhaustive of the works in modern art and bioart. They show how art can be used to question our preconceived notions about science and technology, which might help to engage students in science education about their chosen subject and offer them perspectives that are alien to how the subject is portrayed and taught in its classical curriculum. It is presumably not a bold statement to say that teaching ethics to science students presents a challenge to most lecturers (Johnson, 2010)
The dual-use issue presents an additional new challenge in requiring science students to think about the societal impact of their research, i.e. it requires them to challenge the notion that all research is eventually good and benign
Summary
In 2001, directly after the events of 9/11, the US was hit by another terrorist attack: the use of the US postal service to deliver anthrax letters. The “Committee on Research Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology”, called the Fink Committee, worked between April 2002 and January 2003 to produce the Fink Report. After publication of the Fink report in 2004, the States Parties to the BWC started to discuss this problem and search for a solution. This search is still going on and a major candidate has been dual-use bioethics education of scientists. “1) voluntary codes of conduct and other measures to encourage responsible conduct by scientists, academia and industry; 2) education and awareness-raising about risks and benefits of life science and biotechnology.”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
