A Note on the Definition of "Dual Use''

被引:40
作者
Forge, John [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Unit Hist & Philosophy Sci, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
关键词
Dual-use; Research and development; Technology; Harmful uses of research and technology; Improvised and purpose-built weapons; Threat; Risk;
D O I
10.1007/s11948-009-9159-9
中图分类号
B82 [伦理学(道德学)];
学科分类号
摘要
While there has been much interest in this topic, no generally accepted definition of dual use has been forthcoming. As a contribution to this issue, it is maintained that three related kinds of things comprise the category of dual use: research, technologies and artefacts. In regard to all three kinds, difficulties are identified in making clear distinctions between those that are and are not dual use. It is suggested that our classification should take account of actual capacities and willingness to make use of these objects for 'bad ends' and not the mere possibility that this could be done, and here three 'contextual factors' are identified. A (provisional) definition is proposed that takes account of threats and risks.
引用
收藏
页码:111 / 118
页数:8
相关论文
共 9 条
[1]  
*BMA, 2004, BIOT WEAP HUM, V2
[2]  
FORGE J, 2007, PHILOS CONT WORLD, V14, P79, DOI DOI 10.5840/PCW200714120
[3]  
Forge J., 2008, The Responsible Scientist
[4]   Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences [J].
Miller, Seumas ;
Selgelid, Michael J. .
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2007, 13 (04) :523-580
[5]  
National Research Council, 2004, BIOT RES AG TERR
[6]  
NSABB, 2007, A Report of the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB)
[7]  
Office of Technology Assessment, 1993, TECHN UND WEAP MASS
[8]  
PUSTOVIT S, SCI ENG ETH IN PRESS
[9]   What is "Dual Use" Research? A Response to Miller and Selgelid [J].
Resnik, David B. .
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS, 2009, 15 (01) :3-5