Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

http://www.eurekalert.org/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 010906.php

Experts debate whether certain research should be restricted

Contact: Skip Derra
skip.derra@asu.edu
480-965-4823
Arizona State University

Arizona State University's College Law Center for the Study of Law, Science & Technology will host the Forbidding Science - Balancing Freedom, Security, Innovation and Precaution conference, Thursday and Friday, January 12 and 13, 2006. The conference will be held in the College of Law's Great Hall, located at the corner of Orange Street and McAllister Avenue, Tempe, Ariz.

The first of its kind in decades, the Forbidding Science conference will explore whether some scientific research should be restricted and if so, how far should these restrictions go. Conference scholars will address the growing consensus that certain research should not be done for the good of humanity. But, there is no consensus among scientists, policymakers, ethicists, national security experts and lawyers about which research should be restricted, who should make the decision, and how these decisions should be made. There also is the question of whether it is illegal to ban research under the First Amendment. This issue has never been litigated in the U.S.

"This timely conference is controversial and groundbreaking," said Gary Marchant, executive director of the Center for the Study of Law, Science & Technology at ASU. "We have reached a point in human history where some of the scientific research we could do, perhaps, we should not do for safety, national security or ethical reasons.

"In particular, the conference will examine questions raised by pathogen and toxin, nanotechnology and cognitive enhancement research," added Marchant, who also is an ASU College of Law professor. "We must choose, for the first time, which science should be allowed and which should not. Scientists now are actively engaged in discussions about self-regulation and codes of conduct."

Marchant points out research areas that either have been restricted or may be restricted in the future. Some states have already banned embryonic stem cell research. Universities are concerned with viral and pathogen experiments and their risk to humans if fallen into the wrong hands. The National Institutes of Health has established a separate board to give advice and guidance to the federal government regarding biological research that has the potential for misuse to pose a biologic threat to public health or national security (i.e., dual use research).

More than 20 distinguished scholars from across the U.S. and England will participate in group discussions covering topics such as Framing Forbidding Science, Is There a Right to Conduct Research and Prospects for Governing Research. Among the distinguished conference scholars include Michael Crow, president of Arizona State University; Leon Kass, Clark Harding Professor, Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago; and Martin Redish, Louis & Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy at Northwestern University School of Law. George Poste, director of ASU's Biodesign Institute, will be the keynote speaker Thursday evening (Jan. 12).

Along with ASU College of Law and the ASU Office of the Vice President for Research and Economic Affairs, Forbidding Science conference co-sponsors include, the Biodesign Institute; Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes; the Center for Biology and Society; Arizona Consortium for Medicine, Society and Values; American Association for the Advancement of Science; Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics; and American Bar Association Section of Science and Technology Law.

The conference is open to the public and welcomes all ASU faculty, staff and students. There is no conference fee except for attorneys seeking continuing legal education credits. Advance registration is requested. To register, please go to the conference link at www.law.asu.edu/forbiddingscience.

###

Source:
Paul Atkinson, ASU College of Law
480-965-2487
paul.atkinson@asu.edu

Media contacts:
Skip Derra
480-965-4823
skip.derra@asu.edu

Beth Shapiro
480-727-9052
beth.shapiro@asu.edu

Well, I'm glad they care enough to host a conference about it.

Science without ethics looks too much like the Frankenstein movies we watched as children: "It's Alive!"

Yech.

Yes. Especially in the area of Nanotechnology. But they are aware; and openly talking about it ... which (imo) is the best. We've already created these things, now we have to learn to use them responsibly.

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/48272.html
Nanotechnology Needs Nano-Scale Regulation

Workable Rules

For his part, Davies argues that current levels of government oversight could create distrust and lead to a "public rejection of the technology." While government rules sometimes have a legitimizing effect, that's a poor reason to support them. Over-regulation comes with serious dangers too.

Not only can too many regulations strangle innovation in the cradle, but over-regulation can ironically cause under-regulation, leading to safety hazards. In "Forward to the Future," a Pacific Research Institute report, law professor and celebrity blogger Glenn Reynolds discusses this problem.

"When statutes require especially stringent regulations, administrators will tend not to issue regulations at all. Extraordinarily strict rules on workplace toxins, for example, have led to a failure by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to address all but a tiny minority of chemicals believed to be toxic." And of course, government rules tend to discourage the creation of private-sector solutions.

Light Regulation

The scientific community is well aware of the potential dangers with nano-scale particles. The public will be glad to know that the discussion over proper methods is thriving and developing in tandem with the technology. In addition, concerned groups such as the Foresight Institute in California have released guidelines for self-regulation modeled on the extensive experience in biotechnology where there has been great technical progress and little danger to public safety.

Nanotechnology holds much promise for advances in a number of areas such as material science and medicine, but the nascent industry faces threats from those who believe government should solve problems before they occur. Nanotech scientists must be free to develop their products, as well as the rules that govern their development, in order to reap the rewards and protect society from potential pitfalls. The best approach is the light regulation that already exists, combined with a strong scientific culture of self-regulation.

Light Regulations with self-regulations and an open, active international authority group as overseers .. that idea is timely, fits and should work well. Worth trying anyway.