The question of how to prevent the malevolent use of biomedical research is not new. It has its genesis in how to prevent any new technology, invention, or scientific discovery created for the benefit and advancement of human welfare being used for the expressed purpose of harming the human community. There is the ethical component, the social responsibility component, and the intent to preserve the beneficent characteristic of biomedical research (that it not be used for malevolent purposes) at stake in this issue.

The moral legitimacy of biomedical research is grounded in a prima facie duty; namely, one ought to do good when one is able to do it even if there is the potential for harm. The ethical tension comes from the reality of the good one can produce from biomedical research balanced against the potential harm that may result from the nefarious use of that same research. The proposed policy raises this risk/benefit ratio of whether one should abstain from doing the good for the sake of avoiding the risk of harm. Consequently the question becomes which good serves the needs of the human community better? Is it more ethical to avoid conducting research, with the benefit of reducing death and disease, to prevent the potential misuse of that research or conduct the research and risk experiencing the harmful effects of its misuse by evil people? If the principle of “do no harm” is to drive policymaking, then the practical problem is choosing those actions that do less harm versus actions causing greater harm. Hence the true nature of what constitutes a moral dilemma. We are left with a bad taste from either choice. Abstaining from research or to limit the findings of research at the risk of having the results used for nefarious purposes is to do a greater harm.

This is the similar dilemma faced by Albert Einstein and the other scientists involved with the atomic energy project. There are those who believe the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong from its destructive nature. Given the monetary cost and the human sacrifice of a conventional invasion against mainland Japan, the use of the bomb may well have prevented a far worse human tragedy and moral harm. My father was a United States Marine fighting in the South Pacific so I admit to a bias regarding his life being spared the misery of participating in such a planned invasion. Contrary to the view that this research and its destructive use caused harm, Einstein recognized that the basis for this work prevented a far worse evil. He stated during a speech delivered in New York in December 1945, “We helped create this new weapon in order to prevent the enemies of mankind from achieving it first; given the mentality of the Nazis, this could have brought about untold destruction as well as the enslavement of the peoples of the world.”¹

The practical problem of the proposed guidelines is that they only apply to those committed to the good of mankind—the total global community. German and Japanese biomedical researchers were already evil. Are we to suppose that their modern day successors will give any heed to such limitations, moral accountability, or compliance with global standards for research governance?

There are fundamental flaws in the human character, and finding ways of killing one another is one of those fundamental flaws. General Omar Bradley commented that “we know more about killing than we do about living … more about the atom than we do the Sermon on the Mount.”²

Establishing ethical policy to govern the conduct of unethical people lacks practical merit. The threat of biochemical terrorism and warfare is not a new phenomenon. Policy to govern the ethical conduct of biomedical research is not new either. What continues to make conducting ethical research problematic is the real danger of its exploitation for evil purposes. Hence the practical question, not so much an ethical one, is how to prevent the use of beneficent research for nefarious purposes.

Military biomedical research has always been inherently problematic with regards to how to prevent the “militarization” of its research, militarization in the sense of using defensive research (vaccine development, antidote development, and other prophylaxis modalities) for offensive biochemical weapons development. Recently the military biological research program has jointly ventured with the National Institutes of Health. The purpose of this partnership has always been driven by the openness of the research, establishing trust with civilian partnership and accountability, so as to demonstrate the commitment of the United States to maintaining the beneficent nature of biomedical research. By maintaining a policy of “openness,” the intent is one of deterrence. If we reveal to our enemies our own understanding of the potential offensive application of our research, doing so indicates our knowledge of how to counteract that offensive application, thereby limiting the practical use of a biochemical weapon as a viable threat.

Open programs also carry the connotation of global cooperation in biomedical research programs. Eliminating the element of secrecy serves as a deterrent from other countries investigating the use of this research for offensive purposes. If they are welcomed into the research at the front end as partners in the beneficent application of research, they are less likely to see the need to develop offensive capabilities. Patents, profits, and scientific notoriety aside, there is tremendous waste of effort and money in massive duplication of research efforts.

An overall ethical framework to govern the conduct of biomedical research has been in effect for some time. The effort by the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs to expand its scope and application is a noble one. The problem is how to establish and apply consequences to those who will be noncompliant to its fundamental tenet, namely, “do no harm.” The very nature of evil use by evil people presumes their intentional disregard for ethical conduct, properly designed research, and a resolute defiance of inspections and regulatory oversight of their biomedical research programs. In that same New York speech delivered in 1945, Albert Einstein stated, “we dare not slacken our efforts to make the peoples of the world, and especially their governments, aware of the unspeakable disaster they are certain to provoke unless they change their attitude toward one another and recognize their responsibility in shaping a safe future.”³

Our resolve must always be to seek to do good when we can and to restrict evil when we have the ability and power to do so. The conjoining of these two principles will allow for the continued advancement and proper application of science with the will to seek out and bring to bear the full weight of consequences and judgment to those who would do us harm. We cannot have one without the other.