Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 6
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Park, Eunil Kim, Ki Joon and Kwon, Sang Jib 2016. Attitudes toward biomedical technology and products in South Korea. Health and Technology, Vol. 6, Issue. 2, p. 111.

    Williams-Jones, B. Olivier, C. and Smith, E. 2014. Governing 'dual-use' research in Canada: A policy review. Science and Public Policy, Vol. 41, Issue. 1, p. 76.

    Herrlich, Peter 2013. The responsibility of the scientist. EMBO reports, Vol. 14, Issue. 9, p. 759.

    Selgelid, Michael J. 2013. International Encyclopedia of Ethics.

    Selgelid, Michael J. 2009. Dual-Use Research Codes of Conduct: Lessons from the Life Sciences. NanoEthics, Vol. 3, Issue. 3, p. 175.

    Weir, Lorna and Selgelid, Michael J. 2009. Professionalization as a governance strategy for synthetic biology. Systems and Synthetic Biology, Vol. 3, Issue. 1-4, p. 91.

  • Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Volume 15, Issue 4
  • October 2006, pp. 432-439

Guidelines to Prevent Malevolent Use of Biomedical Research

  • SHANE K. GREEN (a1) (a2), SARA TAUB (a1) (a3), KARINE MORIN (a1) (a4) and DANIEL HIGGINSON (a1) (a4)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 October 2006

In February 1975, a group of leading scientists, physicians, and policymakers convened at Asilomar, California, to consider the safety of proceeding with recombinant DNA research. The excitement generated by the promise of this new technology was counterbalanced by concerns regarding dangers that might arise from it, including the potential for accidental release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Guidelines developed at the conference to direct future research endeavors had several consequences. They permitted research to resume, bringing to an end the voluntary moratorium that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) had instituted several months earlier. They also served to illustrate that the scientific community was capable of self-governance, thereby securing public trust and persuading Congress not to institute legislative restrictions. Finally, they underscored the importance of weighing unforeseen risks inherent in some research against potential benefits that may arise from these same endeavors.The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association (AMA) formulates ethical policies for the medical profession through its interpretations of the AMA's Principles of Medical Ethics. The Council at the time this report was adopted consisted of Michael S. Goldrich, M.D. (Chair); Priscilla Ray, M.D. (Vice-Chair); Regina M. Benjamin, M.D., M.B.A.; Daniel Higginson (student member); Mark A. Levine, M.D.; John M. O'Bannon III, M.D.; Robert M. Sade, M.D.; Monique A. Spillman, M.D., Ph.D. (resident member); and Dudley M. Stewart, Jr., M.D.Staff to the Council at the time the report was adopted were Audiey Kao, M.D., Ph.D. (Vice President, Ethics Standards Group); Karine Morin, L.L.M. (Secretary); and Sara Taub, M.Be. Shane K. Green, Ph.D., was a Fellow in the AMA's Institute for Ethics.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics
  • ISSN: 0963-1801
  • EISSN: 1469-2147
  • URL: /core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *