As described briefly, there are currently three major strands through which life scientists may receive “education” about professional standards and responsible scientific conduct. All of these approaches are included in the baseline surveys described in the rest of the chapter. The education varies widely in form and content, ranging from formal coursework to specialized, sometimes one-time training, to informal instruction or mentoring as part of laboratory work. And the education reaches only a portion of life science students, technical personnel, or faculty. Issues related to raising awareness among life scientists about dual use issues is thus related to larger issues of the type of education about research ethics and broader social responsibility that scientists should receive.
This is the set of practices that have developed over time to protect the health of laboratory workers and avoid accidental or inadvertent releases. This is also the primary channel by which research technicians, who have access to and knowledge of dangerous pathogens that make them important participants in laboratory security, receive their introduction to the culture of responsibility.
Biosafety practices are codified in several national and international documents. The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Laboratory Biosafety Manual (LBM) was first published in 1983, with a third edition in 2004 (WHO 2004).’ In the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention first published the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) in 1984, with the 5th edition being published in 2007 (CDC and NIH 2007). The latest editions of both the LBM and BMBL include chapters introducing the principles of biosecurity. The European Committee for Standardization (CEN) facilitated the development by biosafety and biosecurity professionals of the 2008 International Laboratory Bio-risk Management Standard, which adds a proposed voluntary management system to guide the implementation of specific biosafety and biosecurity practices (CEN 2008). To date the biosafety community has been the most engaged in dual use issues. In large part, this results from the nature of the research subject to biosafety, especially at higher containment levels, and from the impact dual use issues have had on research funding, practice, and sometimes regulation.
Bioethics is broadly concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, philosophy, and theology. The term has multiple meanings in different national and disciplinary contexts, from medical or clinical ethics to research ethics or to ethics related to specific topics, such as research with human subjects and the scope and content of education vary widely as a result. This is reflected in the results of the surveys reported in this chapter. In addition to many government and nongovernment efforts at the national and regional level, the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has had programs in bioethics since the 1970s as part of its general efforts on the ethics of science and technology. To date, with a few important exceptions, there has been little engagement by the bioethics community in dual use issues. Learning things is not limited to the scentific area. Instead it also has relations with some other things like speaking a language or using software, including Rosetta Stone English and Rosetta Stone French. If you have a creative mind, you will make all your own differences in the end!
