Royal Society’s work on dual-use issues

1. Royal Society’s work on dual-use issues Professor Geoffrey L Smith FRS 13 May 2006 Regional workshop on dual-use research, Matrahaza, Hungary

2. The Royal Society • Established in 1660 by King Charles II of England • Oldest scientific society in continuous existence in the world • 62 Nobel laureates in current Fellowship • Provides independent expert advice • Standing committee Scientific Aspects of International Security established in 1988

3. RS work relating to dual-use issues 1 RS-Wellcome Trust Do no harm meeting: October 2004 2 Comments on roles of codes of conduct: • Biological & Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) 2005 Annual Meeting • Response to UK Council for Science & Technology (CST) Rigour, respect and responsibility: a universal code for scientists 3 InterAcademy Panel statement on biosecurity

4. RS-Wellcome Trust meeting: October 2004 Do no harm: reducing the potential for the misuse of life science research • Bought together scientists, funding bodies, learned societies, scientific publishers, journalists & policy makers. Topics covered: • Research funding • Communicating research results • Existing & possible future controls & oversight • Responsibilities of scientists & the utility of an ethical code of conduct for life scientists • Training & education of life scientists

5. Do no harm meeting: key points • Research institutions & funding agencies need to consider how to build on existing processes for reviewing research projects to ensure that risks of misuse are assessed in an appropriate & timely manner. • Preventing publication of basic research would not prevent the misuse of advances in the life sciences. • Self governance by the scientific community was favoured, rather than new legislation. • Although some scepticism was expressed about the value of codes of conduct, it was suggested that the scientific community should take the lead in determining any codes of conduct or good practice, to pre-empt their introduction through legislation or other ‘top down’ approaches. • Education & awareness-raising training are needed to ensure that scientists at all levels are aware of their legal & ethical responsibilities & consider the possible consequences of their research.

6. Roles of codes of conduct (1) • Can help reduce misuse of scientific research • Value of process of producing codes • Value of having a code, or codes • Need wide consultation when defining codes • Extremely difficult to list guiding principles for all scientific work

7. Roles of codes of conduct (2) • Benefit in more detailed codes for specific areas • Many valuable guidelines for professional conduct already exist • Example: building on existing UK health and safety regulations

8. Response to UK CST document Rigour, respect and responsibility: a universal code for scientists • Code needs supporting material such as practical examples of how it might be used & when it applies. • Many examples of existing discipline-specific codes provided by professional societies & funding bodies that cover the broad principles of the CST Code. These bodies should re-examine their existing codes to ensure that all of the principles outlined in the CST code are addressed. • Professional bodies developing a code for the first time might use the CST Code as a basis.

9. Response to UK CST document (2) • Code has considerable value as an educational & as awareness-raising tool to remind scientists of their legal & ethical responsibilities. Undergraduate & postgraduate education programmes should ensure that students are capable of considering the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their activities. • The Code is timely for teachers & 14 – 19 year old students. CST should work through existing organisations & networks to communicate the Code. • In supporting constructive communication the document should explicitly encourage scientists to discuss the results of their own work outside the scientific community, & address the implications of their work for society.

10. IAP statement on biosecurity – Nov 2005 • InterAcademy Panel: global network of science academies. • Endorsed by 68 national science academies. RS involved in drafting with academies from Italy, Netherlands, China, Cuba, Nigeria & USA. Early drafts involved ICGEB. • Statement addresses 5 fundamental issues facing bioscientists: awareness; safety and security; education and information; accountability; and oversight.

11. IAP statement on biosecurity (2) Awareness • Scientists have the obligation to do no harm. They should always take into consideration the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their own activities. They should therefore: • always bear in mind the potential consequences – possibly harmful – of their research & recognize that individual good conscience does not justify ignoring the possible misuse of their scientific endeavor; • refuse to undertake research that has only harmful consequences for human kind. Safety and Security • Scientists working with agents such as pathogenic organisms or dangerous toxins have a responsibility to use good, safe & secure laboratory procedures, whether codified by law or by common practice.

12. IAP statement on biosecurity (3) Education and Information • Scientists should be aware of, disseminate & teach the national & international law & regulations, as well as policies & principles aimed at preventing the misuse of biological research. Accountability • Scientists who become aware of activities that violate the Biological & Toxin Weapons Convention or international customary law should raise their concerns with appropriate people, authorities & agencies. Oversight • Scientists with responsibility for oversight of research or for evaluation of projects or publications should promote adherence to these principles by those under their control, supervision or evaluation and act as role models in this regard.

13. Relevant RS policy documents • Response to CST’s consultation on A universal code for scientists (January 2006) • IAP statement on biosecurity (November 2005) • The roles of codes of conduct in preventing the misuse of scientific research  (June 2005) • Issues for discussion at the 2005 BWC Meeting of Experts (June 2005) • Do no harm: reducing the potential for the misuse of life science research (December 2004) • Paper on the individual and collective roles scientists can play in strengthening international treaties (April 2004)    • Response to UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office Green Paper on strengthening the BWC (November 2002)   All available online at www.royalsoc.ac.uk