Selective Human Virus and the Ethics of Research Regulation,

Two positions may be formulated on the question of whether government or citizens committees should have the power to restrict scientific research. The first position holds that we should deal with the problem on an issue-by-issue basis. If the potential risks of a proposed research undertaking outweigh its potential benefits, either the public sector or the scientific community itself ought to curtail the research. Those who take such a position usually do not answer questions of research regulation in general terms. The second position endorses a blanket solution any limitations on pure scientific research constitute an infringement of a fundamental right, the scientists right to know. Therefore, there should be no regulation of pure scientific research. The scientific community itself may be expected to limit hazardous work. Those who support this position often compare the right to know with traditionally recognized civil liberties such as free speech. This paper reconsiders this question in the light of an objection Hans Jonas has made to unregulated research. Jonas argument and certain considerations as to the social nature of the modern scientific enterprise appear to refute the libertarian claim that any regulation of research constitutes an invasion of civil liberties. An example from the field of virology serves to broaden the objection.