Unit for History and Philosophy of Science, Sydney University, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Sci Eng Ethics. 2010 Mar;16(1):111-8. doi: 10.1007/s11948-009-9159-9. Epub 2009 Aug 14.
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.
虽然人们对这个话题很感兴趣，但目前还没有一个被普遍接受的两用定义。作为对这个问题的贡献，有人认为，有三类相关的东西构成了两用的范畴：研究、技术和人工制品。在这三种情况下，都存在着难以明确区分哪些是两用的，哪些不是两用的困难。有人认为，我们的分类应该考虑到实际的能力和意愿，将这些物品用于“坏的目的”，而不仅仅是可能这样做，这里确定了三个“背景因素”。提出了一个（暂定）定义，考虑到了威胁和风险。
