The Growing Tension Between Openness and Risk in the Life Sciences

The ongoing revolution in the life sciences provides new critical insights and radically new capabilities to an ever increasing number of global participants. While the overwhelming majority of outcomes are beneficial, a small number of discoveries and capabilities pose unusual risks for misuse and widespread harm to humans, animals, plants and the larger ecosphere. The deliberate engineering of a highly virulent and transmissible Influenza virus in 2013 is an example. As was discussed in the early years of nuclear weapons research, are there now experiments in the life sciences that ought not to be undertaken because of disproportionate risks? Is there information from life sciences research that ought not be widely disseminated? If either is true, then what should be the process by which a consensus is reached about the identification and management of such work? What are the moral and ethical responsibilities of life scientists?\\[4pt] Relman DA. The increasingly compelling moral responsibilities of life scientists. Hastings Center Report 2013; 43:34-35.\\[0pt] Relman DA. ``Inconvenient Truths'' in the Pursuit of Scientific Knowledge and Public Health. J Infect Dis 2014; 209:170-2.