Dual-use research: Self-censorship is not enough.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.Nature (Impact Factor: 42.35). 12/2012; 492(7429):345-7. DOI: 10.1038/492345a
ABSTRACT The debate over publishing potentially dangerous research on flu viruses
would benefit from a closer look at history, argue David Kaiser and
Jonathan D. Moreno.
Article: Dear prudence[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Article highlight based on “Th2-type inflammation under conditions of pre-existing chronic disease is associated with liver damage in patients with avian influenza H7N9 virus” by Jiankang Han et al.Microbes and Infection 08/2014; · 2.73 Impact Factor
Article: The Moral Terrain of Science[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The moral terrain of science, the full range of ethical considerations that are part of the scientific endeavor, has not been mapped. Without such a map, we cannot examine the responsibilities of scientists to see if the institutions of science are adequately constructed. This paper attempts such a map by describing four dimensions of the terrain: (1) the bases to which scientists are responsible (scientific reasoning, the scientific community, and the broader society); (2) the nature of the responsibility (general or role); (3) the level of responsibility (minimum demand or ideal); and (4) who bears the responsibility (the individual or the community). Such a map will be used to elucidate the recent debate over the publication of studies concerning H5N1 flu virus.Erkenntnis 06/2013;
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The governance of emerging science and innovation is a major challenge for contemporary democracies. In this paper we present a framework for understanding and supporting efforts aimed at ‘responsible innovation’. The framework was developed in part through work with one of the first major research projects in the controversial area of geoengineering, funded by the UK Research Councils. We describe this case study, and how this became a location to articulate and explore four integrated dimensions of responsible innovation: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness. Although the framework for responsible innovation was designed for use by the UK Research Councils and the scientific communities they support, we argue that it has more general application and relevance.Research Policy 11/2013; 42(9):1568–1580. · 2.85 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.