Rappert Brian
School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
New Genet Soc. 2003 Aug;22(2):169-81. doi: 10.1080/14636770307131.
Recent terrorist attacks in the USA have generated significant attention in many countries to the threats posed by biological weapons. In response to these events and the spectre of future attacks, bioscientists and professional organizations have begun or intensified asking questions about the possible malign applications of their research. As Part I of a two-part article, this paper surveys how genetics might contribute to the development of novel forms of weaponry. It is further argued that the dilemmas and difficulties facing bioscientists pose pressing and thorny questions for the hitherto agendas and orientations of those concerned with the social, ethical and political implications of genetics. Part II will examine the emerging responses initiated by biomedical organizations and spokespersons in the US and the UK. This will be done with a view to asking how scientific and medical research communities are defining and policing notions of professionalism, responsibility and accountability. On the basis of this, suggested lines for future social analysis will be offered.
美国近期发生的恐怖袭击事件引发了许多国家对生物武器所构成威胁的高度关注。针对这些事件以及未来袭击的潜在威胁，生物科学家和专业组织已开始或加强了对其研究可能被恶意利用的质疑。作为一篇分两部分的文章的第一部分，本文探讨了遗传学可能如何推动新型武器的研发。文章进一步指出，生物科学家面临的困境和难题给那些关注遗传学社会、伦理和政治影响的人士迄今的议程和方向提出了紧迫而棘手的问题。第二部分将审视美国和英国的生物医学组织及发言人所做出的新回应。这样做的目的是探讨科学和医学研究界如何界定和规范专业性、责任和问责制的概念。在此基础上，将提出未来社会分析的建议思路。
