Top > JDR > Dual-Use Issues in the Life Sciences: Outcomes of the Seventh ...

single-dr.php

JDR Vol.8 No.4 pp. 667-673
(2013)
doi: 10.20965/jdr.2013.p0667

Paper:

Views over last 60 days: 398

Dual-Use Issues in the Life Sciences: Outcomes of the Seventh Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention

Kiwako Tanaka

The National Institute for Defense Studies, 2-2-1 Nakameguro, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-8648, Japan

Received:
March 31, 2013
Accepted:
June 24, 2013
Published:
August 1, 2013
Creative Commons License
Keywords:
Biological Weapons Convention, dual-use, life sciences, code of conduct
Abstract
Current advances in the life sciences have brought about immense improvements in the areas of health and agricultural productivity worldwide. The technology and knowledge that are used for such advances can, however, be potentially misused as biological weapons. This dual-use nature of the life sciences has become a serious concern, particularly with developments in synthetic biology or “-omics” technologies, such as genomics and proteomics, combined with the increasingly widespread accessibility and use of communications technologies. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is a unique multilateral legal framework that is envisaged to play a significant role in preventing such misuse and misconduct. This paper analyzes the outcomes of the Seventh Review Conference of the BWC, which was held in December 2011, in light of recent scientific and technological developments in the life sciences. It recognizes the establishment of an annual review channel of scientific and technological developments during the intersessional periods between review conferences as a step forward in addressing the dual-use issues related to the BWC. This paper also recommends that, to further strengthen its applicability, this review channel must be utilized effectively to translate the outcomes of the review into national implementation measures, including codes of conduct, education, and awarenessraising.
Cite this article as:
K. Tanaka, “Dual-Use Issues in the Life Sciences: Outcomes of the Seventh Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention,” J. Disaster Res., Vol.8 No.4, pp. 667-673, 2013.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] The Royal Society, “Science and Technology Developments Relevant to the Biological Weapons Convention,” in B. Rappert and C. McLeish (Eds.), “A Web of Prevention: Biological Weapons, Life Sciences and the Governance of Research,” pp. 77-94, Earthscan, London, 2007.
  2. [2] F. Lentzos, “Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention Confidence Building Measures: Toward a Cycle of Engagement,” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol.67, No.3, pp. 26-33, 2011.
  3. [3] Germany, Norway and Switzerland, “Working Paper on the Review and Update of the Confidence-Building Measures,” BWC/CONF.VII/WP.9, United Nations, Geneva, 2011.
  4. [4] United Nations, “Background Information Document Submitted by the Implementation Support Unit on New Scientific and Technological Developments Relevant to the Convention,” BWC/CONF.VII/INF.3, Geneva, 2011.
  5. [5] United Nations, “Background Information Document Submitted by the Implementation Support Unit on New Scientific and Technological Developments Relevant to the Convention–Addendum (Submissions from states parties),” BWC/CONF.VII/INF.3/Add.1-Add.3, Geneva, 2011.
  6. [6] Y. Mori and G. Yoshizawa, “Current Situation of Synthetic Biology in Japan,” Journal of Disaster Research, Vol.6, No.5, pp. 476-481, 2011.
  7. [7] JACKSNNZ, Kenya, Pakistan, Sweden, Ukraine, the U.K, and the U.S., “Working Paper on Possible Approaches to Educational and Awareness-Raising Among Life Scientists,” BWC/CONF.VII/WP.20/Rev.1, United Nations, Geneva, 2011.
  8. [8] The Group of the Non-Aligned Movement and Other States to the BWC, “Working Paper on the Establishment of a Mechanism to Promote the Full Effective and Non-discriminatory Implementation of Article X of the Convention,” BWC/CONF.VII/WP.26, United Nations, Geneva, 2011.
  9. [9] United Nations, “Final Document of the Seventh Review Conference,” BWC/CONF.VII/7, Geneva, 2011.
  10. [10] United Nations, “Final Document,” BWC/CONF.VI/6, Geneva, 2006.
  11. [11] N. A. Sims, “An Annual Meeting for the BTWC,” in Strengthening the BiologicalWeapons Convention Review Conference, No.22, Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK, 2010,
    http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/briefing/RCP_22.pdf [accessed March 12, 2013].
  12. [12] United States of America, “Working Paper on the Next Intersessional Process,” BWC/CONF.VII/WP.23, Geneva, 2011.
  13. [13] United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, “Working Paper on Illustrative Model Intersessional Work Programme: A Proposal for Task Group Structure and Agenda Items,” BWC/CONF.VII/WP.2, Geneva, 2011.
  14. [14] Australia and Japan, “Working Paper on a Proposal for the Next Intersessional Period 2012-2015,” BWC/CONF.VII/WP.12, Geneva, 2011.
  15. [15] United Nations, “Final Document of the Seventh Review Conference,” BWC/CONF.VII/7, Part III, Section B, Geneva, 2011.
  16. [16] US Department of State, “Special Briefing on Outcomes Related to the Seventh BWC Review Conference,” Washington, December 23, 2011,
    http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/179689.htm [accessed March 12, 2013].
  17. [17] A. Moodie, “Lucky Number Seven? The 2011 Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference,” CNS Feature Stories, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, posted on December 23, 2011,
    http://cns.miis.edu/stories/111223_bwc_revcon_2011.htm [accessed March 12, 2013].
  18. [18] The Verification Research, Training and Information Centre, “Time to Lay Down the Law: National Legislation to Enforce the BWC,” VERTIC, London, 2003.
  19. [19] United Nations, “Background Information Document Submitted by the Implementation Support Unit on Compliance by States Parties with their Obligations under the Convention,” BWC/CONF.VII/INF.2, Geneva, 2011.
  20. [20] United Nations, “Final Document of the Seventh Review Conference,” BWC/CONF.VII/7, Geneva, 2011.
  21. [21] G. S. Pearson and N .A. Sims, “The BTWC Seventh Review Conference: A Modest Outcome,” Review Conference Paper No.31, University of Bradford, 2012.
  22. [22] United Nations, “Report of the Committee of the Whole,” BWC/CONF.VII/5, Geneva, 2011
  23. [23] Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, “Terms of Reference of the Scientific Advisory Board: Rules of Procedure for the Scientific Advisory Board and Temporary Working Groups of Scientific Experts,” Hague, 2011,
    http://www.opcw.org/index.php?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=15461 [accessed March 12, 2013].
  24. [24] United Nations, “Report of the Meeting of Experts,” BWC/MSP/2012/MX/3, Geneva, 2012.
  25. [25] United Nations, “The Intersessional Process: Comments and Proposals Submitted by South Africa,” BWC/MSP/2012/WP.7, Geneva, 2012.
  26. [26] United Nations, “Report of the Meeting of States Parties to the BWC,” BWC/MSP/2012/5, Geneva, 2012.
  27. [27] D. Feakes, B. Rappert, and C. McLeish, “Introduction: A Web of Prevention,” in B. Rappert and C. McLeish (Eds.), “A Web of Prevention: Biological Weapons, Life Sciences and the Governance of Research,” pp.1-13, Earthscan, London, 2007.
  28. [28] Science Council of Japan, “Report by the Committee on Dual-use Issues of Science and Technology,” November 30, 2012,
    http://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf/kohyo-22-h166-1.pdf [accessed March 12, 2013].
  29. [29] Science Council of Japan, “Revised Code of Conduct for Scientists,” January 25, 2013,
    http://www.scj.go.jp/ja/info/kohyo/pdf /kohyo-22-s168-1.pdf [accessed March 12, 2013].
  30. [30] National Defense Medical College, University of Bradford, Landau Network-Centro Volta, Dual-Use Education Module Resource,
    http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/educationalmoduleresource/ [accessed March 12, 2013].

Creative Commons License  This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internationa License.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Oct. 01, 2024