What Is the Dual-Use Dilemma? The so-called “dual-use dilemma” arises in the context of research in the biological and other sciences as a consequence of the fact that one and the same piece of sci- tific research sometimes has the potential to be used for harm as well as for good. A dual-use dilemma is an ethical dilemma, and an ethical dilemma for the researcher (and for those who have the power or authority to assist or impede the researcher’s work, e. g. , governments). It is an ethical dilemma since it is about promoting good in the context of the potential for also causing harm, e. g. , the p- motion of health in the context of providing the wherewithal for the killing of in- cents. It is an ethical dilemma for the researcher not because he or she is aiming at anything other than a good outcome; typically, the researcher intends no harm, but only good. Rather, the dilemma arises for the researcher because of the potential actions of others. Malevolent non-researchers might steal dangerous biological agents produced by the researcher; alternatively, other researchers—or at least their governments or leadership—might use the results of the original researcher’s work for malevolent purposes. The malevolent purposes in question include bioterrorism, biowarfare and blackmail for financial gain.

'Overall, this collection of case studies provides an outstanding starting point for understanding the ethics of chemistry. It is an extremely important contribution to the study of chemical ethics … Ethics of Chemistry is a key resource for educators interested in integrating ethics instruction into their chemistry curricula … an important foundation for equipping students with the moral judgement and analytical skills necessary to contend with the ethical issues they are likely to face in their professional lives.'Nature Chemistry'… the book offers a general introduction to many relevant topics concerning the values, responsibilities, and judgements in (and of) chemistry. The volume could be helpful for university students and teachers or even general readers interested in the ethics of chemistry.' [Read Full Review]José Ramón Bertomeu-SánchezAmbixAlthough chemistry has been the target of numerous public moral debates for over a century, there is still no academic field of ethics of chemistry to develop an ethically balanced view of the discipline. And while ethics courses are increasingly demanded for science and engineering students in many countries, chemistry is still lagging behind because of a lack of appropriate teaching material. This volume fills both gaps by establishing the scope of ethics of chemistry and providing a cased-based approach to teaching, thereby also narrating a cultural history of chemistry.From poison gas in WWI to climate engineering of the future, this volume covers the most important historical cases of chemistry. It draws lesson from major disasters of the past, such as in Bhopal and Love Canal, or from thalidomide, Agent Orange, and DDT. It further introduces to ethical arguments pro and con by discussing issues about bisphenol-A, polyvinyl chloride, and rare earth elements; as well as of contested chemical projects such as human enhancement, the creation of artificial life, and patents on human DNA. Moreover, it illustrates chemical engagements in preventing hazards, from the prediction of ozone depletion, to Green Chemistry, and research in recycling, industrial substance substitution, and clean-up. Students also learn about codes of conduct and chemical regulations.An international team of experts narrate the historical cases and analyse their ethical dimensions. All cases are suitable for undergraduate teaching, either in classes of ethics, history of chemistry, or in chemistry classes proper.

What Is the Dual-Use Dilemma? The so-called “dual-use dilemma” arises in the context of research in the biological and other sciences as a consequence of the fact that one and the same piece of sci- tific research sometimes has the potential to be used for harm as well as for good. A dual-use dilemma is an ethical dilemma, and an ethical dilemma for the researcher (and for those who have the power or authority to assist or impede the researcher’s work, e. g. , governments). It is an ethical dilemma since it is about promoting good in the context of the potential for also causing harm, e. g. , the p- motion of health in the context of providing the wherewithal for the killing of in- cents. It is an ethical dilemma for the researcher not because he or she is aiming at anything other than a good outcome; typically, the researcher intends no harm, but only good. Rather, the dilemma arises for the researcher because of the potential actions of others. Malevolent non-researchers might steal dangerous biological agents produced by the researcher; alternatively, other researchers—or at least their governments or leadership—might use the results of the original researcher’s work for malevolent purposes. The malevolent purposes in question include bioterrorism, biowarfare and blackmail for financial gain.

In recent years much has happened to justify an examination of biological research in light of national security concerns. The destructive application of biotechnology research includes activities such as spreading common pathogens or transforming them into even more lethal forms. Policymakers and the scientific community at large must put forth a vigorous and immediate response to this challenge. This new book by the National Research Council recommends that the government expand existing regulations and rely on self-governance by scientists rather than adopt intrusive new policies. One key recommendation of the report is that the government should not attempt to regulate scientific publishing but should trust scientists and journals to screen their papers for security risks, a task some journals have already taken up. With biological information and tools widely distributed, regulating only U.S. researchers would have little effect. A new International Forum on Biosecurity should encourage the adoption of similar measures around the world. Seven types of risky studies would require approval by the Institutional Biosafety Committees that already oversee recombinant DNA research at some 400 U.S. institutions. These "experiments of concern" include making an infectious agent more lethal and rendering vaccines powerless.