Re: What about misuse?
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:08 pm
There are two issues here--let me treat the simpler one first.
With regard to data retention, we currently archive all data. We may in the future move to archiving only sufficient data to efficiently regenerate the results. For example, if 50 years from now it takes 30 seconds to re-compute all of P1475R100 from 2005, all we need to do is store the data sufficient to recompute each of the clones. We want to preserve the ability to retrieve all the hard-computed results, but we will navigate the optimum between effort of computation and effort of storage.
With regard to "dual-use" research, that which could potentially be used for either beneficial or bioweapons purposes, to my knowledge we do not currently engage in any. There are certainly things that could in theory be used to harm humans, but fortunately constructing a viable bioweapon is much harder than it might seem.
That said, we attempt to adhere to the best practices of our field with regard to any such dual-use or potentially harmful research. In major hospitals (such as Stanford), if there is a serious ethical question regarding what course of action would be most helpful for patients, physicians and families often obtain an "ethics consult"--a formal evaluation by an expert on medical ethics who is not involved in the care of the patient. Having an expert in the field who also has some remove from the day-to-day particulars of a case can be extremely helpful in providing guidance. Stanford University has a similar service for biomedical research, provided by the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics http://bioethics.stanford.edu/ . If we found ourselves in a position such as you suggest, we would likely obtain such a consultation. By the way, most major scientific journals also have policies on the publication of potentially harmful research findings. In any case, we would be unlikely to pursue the research but not make it public or to destroy the data. The most likely outcomes would be either to stop the line of research, to continue and make it public, or to continue and make it public but without key information required for harmful use.
I hope this helps to answer your concerns.
With regard to data retention, we currently archive all data. We may in the future move to archiving only sufficient data to efficiently regenerate the results. For example, if 50 years from now it takes 30 seconds to re-compute all of P1475R100 from 2005, all we need to do is store the data sufficient to recompute each of the clones. We want to preserve the ability to retrieve all the hard-computed results, but we will navigate the optimum between effort of computation and effort of storage.
With regard to "dual-use" research, that which could potentially be used for either beneficial or bioweapons purposes, to my knowledge we do not currently engage in any. There are certainly things that could in theory be used to harm humans, but fortunately constructing a viable bioweapon is much harder than it might seem.
That said, we attempt to adhere to the best practices of our field with regard to any such dual-use or potentially harmful research. In major hospitals (such as Stanford), if there is a serious ethical question regarding what course of action would be most helpful for patients, physicians and families often obtain an "ethics consult"--a formal evaluation by an expert on medical ethics who is not involved in the care of the patient. Having an expert in the field who also has some remove from the day-to-day particulars of a case can be extremely helpful in providing guidance. Stanford University has a similar service for biomedical research, provided by the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics http://bioethics.stanford.edu/ . If we found ourselves in a position such as you suggest, we would likely obtain such a consultation. By the way, most major scientific journals also have policies on the publication of potentially harmful research findings. In any case, we would be unlikely to pursue the research but not make it public or to destroy the data. The most likely outcomes would be either to stop the line of research, to continue and make it public, or to continue and make it public but without key information required for harmful use.
I hope this helps to answer your concerns.