Read Full Report
Additional Links

Date:  Feb. 5, 2009

Contacts:  Sara Frueh, Media Relations Officer

Luwam Yeibio, Media Relations Assistant

Office of News and Public Information

202-334-2138; e-mail <>




Survey Samples Life Scientists' Views on 'Dual Use' Research and Bioterrorism;

Some Respondents Already Taking Action to Avert Misuse of Research


WASHINGTON -- Rapid advances in the biological sciences over the last several decades have yielded great benefits such as medical therapies and vaccines.  But some of these same scientific advances could also be used for malicious purposes, a threat that has become more salient to the science and policy communities since the terrorist attacks of 2001. 


The National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) surveyed a sample of AAAS members in the life sciences to assess their awareness of and attitudes toward such "dual-use" research – studies undertaken for beneficial purposes that could also have harmful applications such as bioterrorism.  The survey also explored actions the scientists might support to reduce the risk of misuse of research, as well as steps that scientists may already be taking in response to these concerns.  The results of the survey, conducted in 2007, are summarized in a new report from the Research Council, which includes recommendations for next steps.


The survey yielded some of the first empirical data on U.S. life scientists' views about biosecurity and the potential misuse of legitimate scientific research.  The survey results offer insights and generate hypotheses that can be tested in future efforts, said the committee that wrote the report.  However, a low response rate and uncertainties about whether the sample reflects the broader life sciences community limit the ability to generalize from the responses about the full U.S. life sciences community.  Nevertheless, even with this limitation, the survey results are useful and informative, noted the committee.


The results suggest that survey respondents perceive a potential but not overwhelming risk of a bioterror attack in the next five years, a risk they believe is greater outside the U.S.  Most respondents do not believe it is likely that dual-use knowledge, tools, or techniques will facilitate a bioterror attack in that time period. 


Survey results also indicate that some respondents -- more than the committee had expected -- have been so concerned about dual-use issues that they have already taken action to try to avert misuse of research in the life sciences, even in the absence of guidelines or government restrictions.  Some respondents reported that they had broken collaborations, not conducted some research projects, or not communicated research results. 


Many of respondents' precautionary actions were taken during design, collaboration, and initial communication stages of research, before reaching the publication stage, the report notes.  Of particular interest and concern to the committee, a few respondents offered comments about foreigners as potential security risks, which may be reflected in the reported avoidance of some collaborations.


"The fact that some scientists are changing their research activities may indicate that the life sciences community is responsibly responding to reduce the risk of misuse of science," said committee chair Ronald Atlas, professor of biology and public health at the University of Louisville.  "But it is also possible that some scientists are overreacting to the perceived threat, for example by breaking collaborations and excluding foreigners from their laboratories.  Our committee feels that it's important to further investigate how research activity is being changed in response to dual-use concerns."


With regard to future actions that the life sciences community would support to reduce the threat of misuse of research, the survey results indicate that life scientists in the U.S. may be more willing to consider mechanisms to reduce risks if they are developed and implemented by the scientific community itself.  Most respondents favor their professional societies prescribing a code of conduct to help prevent misuse of life science research, for example, while a minority supported greater federal oversight.  Among possible government restrictions, respondents were more supportive of restrictions on access to biological agents and certification of researchers than of any control of scientific knowledge generated from the research.


In addition, respondents showed support for mandatory training by institutions for practicing life scientists regarding dual-use concerns, as well as education materials and lectures for students.


The survey results also highlight the need to better define the scope of research that is of concern, the report notes.  Fewer than half the respondents who reported carrying out dual-use research activities felt that their work falls into one of the seven categories of research of concern identified by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which was created in 2004 to advise federal agencies about dual-use research.


Based on the survey results, the committee urged further exploration of ways to provide guidance to the life sciences community about appropriate actions that could protect against misuse of dual-use research.  The committee also recommended further research to examine the effectiveness of educational programs on these topics and find ways to enhance them. 


In addition, the report recommends surveys and interviews that can reach additional life scientists or begin to probe more deeply into life scientists' attitudes.  And surveys of scientists outside the U.S. would increase knowledge and help facilitate international discussions of potential measures to address concerns about dual-use research.


The report was sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the National Academies' Presidents' Circle Communications Initiative.  The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies.  They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter.  The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.  A committee roster follows.


Copies of A Survey of Attitudes and Actions on Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences: A Collaborative Effort of the National Research Council and the American Association for the Advancement of Science  are available from the National Academies Press; tel. 202-334-3313 or 1-800-624-6242 or on the Internet at  Reporters may obtain a copy from the Office of News and Public Information (contacts listed above).  In addition, a podcast of the public briefing held to release this report is available at



Policy and Global Affairs

Development, Security and Cooperation




Division on Earth and Life Studies

Board on Life Sciences


Committee on Assessing Fundamental Attitudes of Life Scientists

as a Basis for Biosecurity Education

Ronald M. Atlas (chair)
Professor of Biology and Public Health
Center for Health Hazards Preparedness
University of Louisville
Louisville, Ky.

Robert M. Cook-Deegan

Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy

Center for Genome Ethics, Law, and Policy

Duke University

Durham, N.C.


David R. Franz

Vice President and Chief Biological Scientist

Midwest Research Institute
Frederick, Md.

James M. Lepkowski

Research Professor
Institute for Social Research


Department of Biostatistics
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor

Francis L. Macrina
Vice President for Research and
Edward Meyers Professor of Dentistry  
Virginia Commonwealth University

Kathleen M. Vogel

Assistant Professor

Department of Science and Technology Studies and the Peace Studies Program
Cornell University
Ithaca, N.Y.



Jo L. Husbands

Senior Project Director


Fran Sharples

Director, Board on Life Sciences


John Sislin

Study Director


Kavita Marfatia Berger

Project Director and Consultant