Visions beyond Control: The Role of Art in Exploring Dual-Use Bioethics Education for Scientists


In the wake of the anthrax attacks in the US in 2001, the Biological Weapons Convention has increasingly focused its efforts on reducing the risk of bioterrorism. One of the questions that received particular attention was how to prevent the misuse of benign biological research for malign purposes. The argument is that modern biological research is rife with research that is dual-use in nature, i.e. that it can be used either for benign or malign purposes. Over the last decade, the debate has increasingly focussed on the role and responsibility of the scientific community in addressing this issue. Education in dual-use ethics has been considered as one of the major factors that can help with the dual-use problem. However, even general science ethics education is limited at the moment and presents a challenge to any lecturer. In discussing the views of Martin Heidegger and Richard Rorty’s interpretation of Heidegger, this article argues for the use of art and bioart as educational vehicles to help scientists explore their roles and responsibilities with regard to their own research and its dual-use nature.

Share and Cite:

Walther, G. (2013) Visions beyond Control: The Role of Art in Exploring Dual-Use Bioethics Education for Scientists. Creative Education, 4, 35-41. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.412A2006.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Association of Universities in the Netherlands (2012). The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Scientific Practice.
[2] BWC (2011) Seventh Review Conference of the States Parties, Geneva, 5-22 December 2011, Geneva: BWC/CONF.VII/7.
[3] Davis, L. J., & Morris, D. B. (2007). Biocultures manifesto. New Literary History, 38, 411-418.
[4] Ehni, H.-J. (2008). Dual use and the ethical responsibility of scientists. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 56, 147-152.
[5] Enserink, M. (2011). Scientists brace for media storm around controversial flu studies. ScienceInsider, 23 November 2011.
[6] FBI (2013). Amerithrax or anthrax investigations.
[7] Goodall, J. (2000). An order of pure decision: un-natural selection in the work of Stelarc and Orlan. In M. Featherstone (Ed.), Body modification (pp. 149-170). London: Sage.
[8] Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper and Row.
[9] Johnson, J. (2010). Teaching ethics to science students: Challenges and a strategy. In B. Rappert (Ed.), Education and ethics in the life sciences (pp. 197-213). Canberra: ANU E Press.
[10] Kuhlau, F., Eriksson, S., Evers, K., & Hoglund, A. T. (2008). Taking due care: Moral obligations in dual use research. Bioethics, 22, 477487.
[11] Macneill, P. U. (2011). The arts and medicine: A challenging relationship. Medical Humanities, 37, 85-90.
[12] Macneill, P. U., & Ferran, B. (2011). Art and bioethics: Shifts in understanding across genres. Bioethical Inquiry, 8, 71-85.
[13] Miller, S., & Selgelid, M. J. (2008). Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Netherlands: Springer.
[14] Minehata, M. (2010). An investigation of biosecurity education for life scientists in the Asia Pacific region. Research monograph for the Wellcome Trust project on building a sustainable capacity in dualuse bioethics. Exeter and Bradford: University of Exeter and University of Bradford.
[15] Minehata, M., & Walther, G. (2014). Biosecurity education and awareness in neuroscience. In J. Clausen, & N. Levy (Eds.), Handbook of neuroethics. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media.
[16] NRC (2004). Committee on research standards and practices to prevent the destructive application of biotechnology. Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. The National Academies Press.
[17] Okrent, M. (1988). Heidegger’s pragmatism: Understanding, being, and the critique of metaphysics. London: Cornell University Press.
[18] Rappert, B. (2010). Education and ethics in the life sciences: Strengthening the prohibition of biological weapons. Canberra: Australian National University E Press.
[19] Rees, G. (2010). The ethical imperative of medical humanities. Journal of Medical Humanities, 31, 267-277.
[20] Rorty, R. (1991) Essays on Heidegger and Others–Philosophical Papers Volume 2. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[21] Schmitt, K., & Zacchia, N. A. (2012). Total decontamination cost of anthrax letter attacks. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 10.
[22] Selgelid, M. J. (2009). Dual-use research codes of conduct: Lessons from the life sciences. Nanoethics, 3, 175-183.
[23] Shapiro, J., Coulehan, J., & Wear, D. (2009). Medical humanities and their discontents: Definitions, critiques, and implications. Academic Medicine, 84, 192-198.
[24] Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[25] Walther, G. (2013). Ethics in neuroscience curricula: A survey of Australia, Canada, Germany, the UK, and the US. Neuroethics, 6, 343351.
[26] Zylinska, J., & Hall, G. (2002). Probings: An interview with Stelarc. In J. Zylinska (Ed.), The Cyborg experiments: The extensions of the body in the media age (pp. 114-130). New York: Continuum.

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.