University of Massachusetts, Lowell, Massachusetts, USA.
Institute on Ethics and Policy for Innovation (IEPI); McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
J Med Philos. 2022 Feb 8;47(1):72-94. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhab041.
In debates over the regulation of communication related to dual-use research, the risks that such communication creates must be weighed against against the value of scientific autonomy. The censorship of such communication seems justifiable in certain cases, given the potentially catastrophic applications of some dual-use research. This conclusion however, gives rise to another kind of danger: that regulators will use overly simplistic cost-benefit analysis to rationalize excessive regulation of scientific research. In response to this, we show how institutional design principles and normative frameworks from free speech theory can be used to help extend the argument for regulating dangerous dual-use research beyond overly simplistic cost-benefit reasoning, but without reverting to an implausibly absolutist view of scientific autonomy.
在有关双重用途研究相关交流监管的辩论中，必须权衡这种交流所带来的风险与科学自主性的价值。考虑到某些双重用途研究可能带来的灾难性后果，在某些情况下，对这种交流进行审查似乎是合理的。然而，这一结论引发了另一种危险：监管者将使用过于简单的成本效益分析来合理化对科学研究的过度监管。针对这一问题，我们展示了如何利用言论自由理论中的制度设计原则和规范框架，帮助将管制危险双重用途研究的论点扩展到超越过于简单的成本效益推理的范围，但又不回到对科学自主性的不切实际的绝对主义观点。
