|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
New Board to Advise U.S. Scientists on Dual-Use Research By Marina Malenic WASHINGTON — The Bush administration yesterday announced the creation of a national scientific council to advise scientists on preventing sensitive biological research from falling into the hands of terrorists (see GSN, Sept. 5, 2003). “The very same tools developed to better the health and condition of humankind can also be used for its destruction,” U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson yesterday. In addition to its advisory role, the 25-member National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity would develop a voluntary code of conduct for scientists engaged in biological research. The board would also set guidelines for identification of research that might need additional security and prepare educational material on biosecurity. A panel of experts at the National Academy of Sciences recommended in October that an advisory board be created. Members cited concerns about the potential misuse of the “tools, technology or potential knowledge base of research for offensive military or terrorist purposes” (see GSN, Oct. 20, 2003). The new initiative would not directly regulate scientific research, said John Gordon, President George W. Bush’s special assistant for homeland security. “Our response must be carefully measured lest we do more harm than good in the name of biosecurity, and lest we somehow stifle the needed research that is so important to all of us,” he told Voice of America news yesterday. “Heavy-handed government regulation isn’t the answer, but I think there is a very appropriate government role,” Gordon added. The board’s creation was a “step in the right direction,” Gigi Kwik, professor of medicine at the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, told Global Security Newswire. She added that the advisory and exploratory role of the board is appropriate. “HHS appropriately did not make this a regulatory directive,” Kwik said. “Science does not work well with top-down regulation, particularly this very gray area of dual-use research,” she added. Kwik also said decisions about what types of research to pursue and how to pursue them are best left to local institutions within the scientific community. “Scientists listen to and respect their institutional leaders, and one of the most important things this board can do is to establish a good relationships with scientific community and to develop a culture that is good for both science and for national security,” she said.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
