Hastings Cent Rep. 2020 Nov;50(6):27-38. doi: 10.1002/hast.1196.
Many instances of scientific research impose risks, not just on participants and scientists but also on third parties. This class of social risks unifies a range of problems previously treated as distinct phenomena, including so-called bystander risks, biosafety concerns arising from gain-of-function research, the misuse of the results of dual-use research, and the harm caused by inductive risks. The standard approach to these problems has been to extend two familiar principles from human subjects research regulations-a favorable risk-benefit ratio and informed consent. We argue, however, that these moral principles will be difficult to satisfy in the context of widely distributed social risks about which affected parties may reasonably disagree. We propose that framing these risks as political rather than moral problems may offer another way. By borrowing lessons from political philosophy, we propose a framework that unifies our discussion of social risks and the possible solutions to them.
许多科学研究不仅对参与者和科学家,而且对第三方都存在风险。这类社会风险将以前被视为不同现象的一系列问题统一起来,包括所谓的旁观者风险、功能获得研究引起的生物安全问题、两用研究成果的滥用以及诱导风险造成的危害。解决这些问题的标准方法是从人体研究法规中扩展两个熟悉的原则——有利的风险-效益比和知情同意。然而,我们认为,在受影响方可能合理存在分歧的广泛存在的社会风险背景下,这些道德原则将很难得到满足。我们提出,将这些风险视为政治问题而不是道德问题可能提供另一种方法。通过借鉴政治哲学的经验,我们提出了一个框架,将我们对社会风险及其可能解决方案的讨论统一起来。