The Influenza Controversy

The Influenza Controversy

Relevant Facts

The case study, “The Influenza Controversy: Should Limits be Placed on Science” by Lawrence O. Gostin focuses on different issues. The main issue that the author focuses on is the concept of freedom and limitation of scientific research, using the research on the genetic modification of influenza A. Morally relevant issues in this case include the publication and dissemination conducted on the contagious nature of influenza A. Genetically modifying the virus has made it more contagious in humans. The reason behind the research is that the virus could mutate naturally within a few years. This could be fatal because there would not be any way of dealing with it. However, conducting the research is a way for scientists to improve on the methodology of the research, and to improve the results. The research acts to prepare scientists to deal with a possible spread of the disease in case of a breakout, by preparing an antidote. Another morally relevant fact is the withholding of research findings and redacting of scientific research, as this would limit security risk. People with ill intentions can get hold of the scientific research, and they can use this research in building biological weapons. Limiting some of the details of the research, for instance, the methodology part of the research, would limit this threat. Unknown relevant fact in the case is the replication of this particular scientific research, which would encourage improvement of the results and enhance knowledge in the area of research. It would also lead to improved methodologies, and the development of practical applications.

Values in Conflict

There are some competing values in this case. Scientific research is beneficial as it leads to the creation of new knowledge. However, some of this research creates security concern, since it is open to everyone. This makes it easy for people with ill intentions to use the research for malicious purposes, and endanger other people. The government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens, and it has to ensure it deals with situations that expose people to risks and danger. This includes limiting scientific research. However, the first amendment ensures the freedom of scientific expression. This limits the extent at which the government can impose limitation on scientific research.

Another set of competing values involves the publication of the research. Some of the stakeholders, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), support open publication, while others, such as the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NASBB), support the redaction of information before publication. NASBB feels that revealing all the information would pose a massive security risk and would cause bioterrorism concern. They fear that people with the intention of using the research as a weapon can obtain information, and can use it to attack others. The World Health Organization feels that an open publication would decrease any risks in case of natural mutation. They feel that this would give other scientists interested in the research, a chance to work on the research, and improve it in different ways. Another set of competing values involves the dissemination of the scientific knowledge. This could be useful for the scientific community as it could enhance further research. At the same time, disseminating the research would make it a biological weapon for terrorists.

Another set of competing value arises in maintaining the freedom of expression. This freedom is a constitutional right, and it protects scientific research as a form of scientific expression. Releasing results from scientific research is a form of expression. The government cannot compel the scientist not to release its findings since it constitutes a violation of the first amendment. Another set of competing value arises in the research itself. Some people argue that scientists should not have conducted this research in the first place. Those who do not support this research do not see any potential benefit in conducting the research. Others argue that the potential risks outweigh any benefit that the knowledge in the research presents. Those who support this research argue that the research will be beneficial because it will help in counter measures, in case of an attack. Moreover, the mutations of some virus strains enable the creation of new strains. They argue that this research provides an adequate training ground for scientists interested in dealing with the influenza A problem before it worsens by creating more strains.

Possible Actions

One possible action is to examine the risk that the research poses. The scientific community should examine the level of risk posed by their research. The scientists should consider how this risk would occur, and how it would affect people. They should consider risks such as the possibility of bioterrorism. Another possible action is to check whether there is any benefit in redaction. Government agencies insist on redaction, as a way of reducing the threat and risks. However, a person interested in finding information could find it through different channels. Therefore, redaction is not a feasible option in reducing risk where information is readily available.

Position and Rationale

The researchers should consider redacting the main information, especially the methods used in the research process, and this information should only be available to a few select people. I believe this is the best way to go about it because it creates an opportunity for researchers to share information, therefore enabling scientific expression, and it creates a way for the government to protect the people. There is a possibility that other people are working and researching on this virus, and some of them might find a way to making the virus more pandemic. These people might not have genuine intentions, and there is the possibility that they would use their research as a bio weapon. If these people use the virus as a weapon, the results would be devastating. Without this research, the scientific community would lack sufficient time for the development of a cure or prevention for the flu. This enhances the importance of the research. The information should be made available to a few selected individuals to limit the possibility of a leakage. Already, the people who conducted the research have all the information. Nothing is guaranteed, and this information can leak accidentally or intentionally. Moreover, the Freedom of Information Act ensures that the public can access non-classified research[1]

The government has become increasingly concerned on terrorism matters, and it has put measures in every sector to ensure that it reduces the chance of terrorist attacks. It is concerned that open publication of scientific research can assist terrorists groups in their attacks[2]. Terrorists have become more daring in their attacks than before. Anything that has the potential for mass killings can act as a weapon. Scientists should make their contribution toward fighting terrorism by preventing any access to research that might lead to the development of weapons.

Not everyone who conducts scientific research has noble intentions. Not every scientist is concerned with the advancement of knowledge when he or she conducts scientific research. Therefore, there is a need to enforce or encourage limitations on scientific research. Various publications such as journals try to limit accessibility of scientific research by placing limitations such as financial limitations and copyright laws[3].

Potential Objections

Over the years, there have been significant strides in the advancement of scientific knowledge. This is because many scientists have increased the rate at which they share information. It has also increased research in different areas[4]. Most scientists tend to value the opinion of their peers, and the publication of their research enables such discussion. Scientists encourage research publication because of the recognition they get when the researchers credit their work in their research[5]. In addition, most of the scientific research is open to the public, and this has increased people’s awareness. Limiting publications would limit the chance for further growth and would derail scientific progress[6]. The government might have a hard time controlling research. This is because people can use many channels to disseminate information[7]. The internet has made it possible for scientists to publish their findings. Moreover, scientists can use other channels such as sound recordings and movies, as a way of releasing information[8]. One cannot rely on the ethical nature of humanity in avoiding actions such as terrorism. Some scientists consider it their duty to discover new findings and to encourage growth in the respective field, and not to prevent the society from danger[9].

Bibliography

Gostin, O. Lawrence. The Influenza Controversy: Should Limits be placed on Science. Hastings Center Report 42, no. 3 (2012)

Leeuw De, Karl and Bergstra, J. A. The History of Information Security: A Comprehensive Handbook. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007

Macrina, L. Francis. Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research. Washington DC: ASM Press, 2005

Shamoo, E. Adil, and Resnik, B. David. Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009

Shea, A. Dana. “Balancing Scientific Publication and National Security Concerns: Issues for Congress” accessed August 17, 2012. www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31695.pdf

[1] Francis L. Macrina, Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research (Washington DC: ASM Press, 2005), 214

[2] Shea, A. Dana, “Balancing Scientific Publication and National Security Concerns: Issues for Congress”, accessed August 17, 2012, www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31695.pdf

[3] Karl De Leeuw and J. A. Bergstra, The History of Information Security: A Comprehensive Handbook (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007), 29

[4] Adil E. Shamoo and David B. Resnik, Responsible Conduct of Research (Washington DC: ASM Press, 2005), 128

[5] Francis L. Macrina, Scientific Integrity: Text and Cases in Responsible Conduct of Research (Washington DC: ASM Press, 2005), 61

[6] Adil E. Shamoo and David B. Resnik, Responsible Conduct of Research (Washington DC: ASM Press, 2005), 129

[7] Karl De Leeuw and J. A. Bergstra, The History of Information Security: A Comprehensive Handbook (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007), 29

[8] Karl De Leeuw and J. A. Bergstra, The History of Information Security: A Comprehensive Handbook (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007), 42

[9] Adil E. Shamoo and David B. Resnik, Responsible Conduct of Research (Washington DC: ASM Press, 2005), 128

Last Completed Projects