Bibliography on Biological Weapons and Codes of Conduct

This page lists a variety of online and hardcopy publications addressing biological weapons & codes of conduct (in part or in full), professional codes of conduct, and the overall security threats posed by biological research.

For general publications about biological warfare and prohibitions, instead, see:

• CBW Conventions Bulletin
• University of Bradford Briefing Papers
• Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science

Biological Weapons and Codes of Conduct

• American Society for Microbiology (ASM) 2002. Conducting Research During the War on Terrorism: Balancing Openness and Security. 10 October.
• Bush, President G. 2001. President's Statement on Biological Weapons. 1 November.
• British Medical Association (BMA). 1999. Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity. London: Harwood Academic Publishers.
• BTWC Secretariat 2005. Existing Codes of Conduct which Refer to Biological and Toxin Weapons.
• BTWC Secretariat 2005. Codes of Conduct Relevant to the Life Sciences or Biotechnology Which Do Not Refer to Biological and Toxin Weapons.
• BTWC Secretariat 2005. Review and Analysis of Relevant Elements of Existing Codes of Conduct in Other Fields.
• BTWC Secretariat 2005. Relevant Organisations, Associations, Professional Bodies and Institutions Which Might Serve as Sources of Guidance on the Formulation of Codes of Conduct and as Agents for Adopting and Promulgating Such Codes.
• Cournand 1977. The Code of the Scientists. Science 198: 699–705.
• Dhanapala, J. 2003. Defence Scientists Must Take an Ethical Stance. Financial Times 3 October.
• The Guardian. 2002. Society Calls for Scientific Code of Conduct. The Guardian. 6 November
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK) 2002. Strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. London: HMSO.
• Hedén, C.-G. 1968. Perspective on an Identity Card or Certificate for Scientists. Scientific World 12 (4/5): 24–28.
• House of Commons – Science and Technology Committee (UK) 2003. The Scientific Response to Terrorism. 6 November 2003 London: HMSO.
• House of Commons -- Foreign Affairs Committee (UK) 2002. The Biological Weapons Green Paper. London: HMSO.
• International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War 2004. Preventing a Biological Arms Race. NATO Defense College Conference on Future Challenges For Non-Proliferation Instruments. Rome, Italy 16–17 March.
• Journé, V. and J. Reppy 2003. Pugwash Workshop No. 286 Report. Pugwash Workshop on Science, Ethics and Society Paris, France, 27–29 June 2003
• Lentzos, F. 2006. Managing Biorisks: Considering Codes of Conduct. Nonproliferation Review 13(2) July: 221.
• National Research Council (US) 2004. Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism Committee on Research Standards and Practice to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
• National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity 2007. Proposed Framework for the Oversight of Dual Use Life Sciences Research. Washington, DC: NSABB.
• Neto, Roque Monteleone 2003. Biology and Codes of Conduct. Proceedings of UNESCO COMEST Third Session Rio de Janeiro 1–4 December 2003. 109–113 (warning: large file).
• Paldy, L. 1998. A Code of Ethics on Arms R&D for Scientists and Engineers. Presented at The Sixth ISODARCO Beijing Seminar on Arms Control 29 October – 1 November Shanghai, China.
• Pigman, W. and E. Carmichael 1950. An Ethical Code for Scientists. Science 111: 643–647.
• Rappert, B. 2005. Biological Weapons and the Life Sciences: The Potential for Professional Codes. Disarmament Forum no1. 53–61.
• Rappert, B. 2004. Towards a Life Science Code: Countering Threats from Biological Weapons.
• Rotblat, J. Science and Humanity in the Twenty-First Century.
• Royal Society (UK) 2002. Response to Green Paper Strengthening the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. London: Royal Society.
• Royal Society (UK). 2004. The Individual and Collective Roles Scientists can Play in Strengthening International Treaties London: Royal Society.
• Science. 2003. Statement on Scientific Publication and Security. Science 222: 1149.
• The Scientist. 2002. Conduct Unbecoming: International Code of Conduct for Biological Scientists Being Considered. The Scientist 12 November.
• Somerville, M. and R. Atlas. 2005. A Code of Ethics for the Life Sciences. Science, Vol 307 (5717) 1881–1882.
• Stimson Center 2002. Compliance through Science: US Pharmaceutical Industry Experts on a Strengthened Bioweapons Nonproliferation Regime. September.
• Tucker, J. 2004. Biological Threat Assessment: Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease? Arms Control October.
• Wellcome Trust. 2003. Wellcome Trust Position Statement on Bioterrorism and Biomedical Research.
• World Medical Association 2002. Declaration of Washington on Biological Weapons.

Professional Codes of Conduct – General

For further bibliographic information see: Ethics codes and guidelines at the Online Ethics Center for Engineering and Science, and Codes of Ethics Online at the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions.

• Backof, J. and C. Martin 1991. Historical Perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics 10:99–110.
• Cash, M. 1987. Codes of Ethics, Organizational Behaviour and Misbehaviour. Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy 9: 107–130.
• Coady, M. and S. Bloch (eds) 1996. Codes of Ethics and Professions. Sydney: Melbourne University Press.
• Davis, M. 1998. Thinking Like an Engineer. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Doig, A. and J. Wilson 1998. The Effectiveness of Codes of Conduct. Business Ethics 7(3): 140–149.
• Evers. K 2004. Standards for Ethics and Responsibility in Science - an Empirical Study.
• Evers. K 2001. Standards for Ethics and Responsibility in Science.
• Evers. K 2000. Formulating International Ethical Guidelines for Science.
• Fisher, C. 2003. Developing a Code of Ethics for Academics. Science and Engineering Ethics 9(2): 171–179.
• Gotterbarn D. Not all codes are created equal. J Business Ethics 1999 22: 81–89.
• Higgs-Kleyn, N. and D. Kapelianis 1999. The Role of Professional Codes in Regulating Ethical Conduct. Journal of Business Ethics 19: 363–374.
• Iverson, M., M. Frankel and S. Siage 2003. Scientific Societies and Research integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 9(2): 141–158.
• Kaptein, M. 2004. Business Codes of Multinational Firms. Journal of Business Ethics 50: 13–31.
• Kaptein, M. and J. Wempe 1998. Twelve Gordian Knots When Developing an Organizational Code of Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 517: 853–869.
• Ladd, J. 1991. The Question for a Code of Professional Ethics. In: Johnson, D. (ed), Ethical Issues in Engineering. Prentice Hall, pp 130–136.
• Luegenbiehl 1991. Codes of ethics and the Moral Education of Engineers. In: Johnson, D. (ed), Ethical Issues in Engineering. Prentice Hall. pp 136–154.
• Macdonald, S. 1995. The Sociology of the Professions. London: Sage.
• Pels, P. 1999. Professions of Duplexity. Current Anthropology 40(2): 101–114.
• Reiser, S. and R. Bulger 1997. The Social Responsibilities of Biological Scientists. Science and Engineering Ethics 3(2): 137–143.
• Shrader-Frechette, K. 1994. Ethics of Scientific Research. Lanham: Rowan & Littlefield.
• Soskolne, C. and L. Sieswerda 2003. Implementing Ethics on the Professions. Science and Engineering Ethics 9(2): 181–190.
• Unger, S. 1991. Code of Engineering Ethics. In: Johnson, D. (ed), Ethical Issues in Engineering. Prentice Hall, pp 105–130.
• Whitbeck, C. 1995. Teaching Ethics to Scientists and Engineers. Science and Engineering Ethics 1(3): 299–308.

Security Threats of Biological Research

• AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) Resource: Science and National Security in the Post-9/11 Environment
• Association of American Universities. Scientific Openness and Security Web Site
• Alberts, B. 2002. 'Engaging in a Worldwide Transformation: Our Responsibility as Scientists for the Provision of Global Public Goods' Annual Meeting of the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, D.C.) April 29.
• Alberts, B. & May, R. 2002. 'Scientists Support for Biological Weapons Controls' 8 Science November 2002:1135.
• Albright, P. 2003. 'Scientific Openness and National Security' Presented at Meeting on National Security and Research in the Life Sciences National Academies and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, D.C.) 9 January.
• Block, S. 2002. "Facing the Growing Threat of Biological Weapons" 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology 14 December.
• Dando, M. 2002. 'Future Incapacitating Agents' In Non-Lethal Weapons Nick Lewer (ed) London: Frank Cass.
• Dando, M. and B. Rappert. 2005. Codes of Conduct for the Life Sciences: Some Insights from UK Academia Bradford Briefing Paper No. 16 (2nd Series), May.
• Dennis, C. 2001. The Bugs of War. Nature 17 May: 232–235.
• Epstein, G. 2003. 'Addressing the Security Implications of National Research' Presented at Meeting on National Security and Research in the Life Sciences National Academies and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, D.C.) 9 January.
• Epstein, G. 2001. 'Controlling Biological Warfare Threats' Critical Reviews in Microbiology 27, 4, 321–354.
• Fraser, C. & Dando, M. 2001. 'Genomics and Future Biological Weapons: The Need for Preventive Action by the Biomedical Community' Nature Genetics 22 October.
• Green, Shane. 2004. Living Code - Physician-Scientists and Social Responsibility Ethics Journal of the Amercian Medical Association
• Knezo, G. 2003. “Sensitive but Unclassified” and Other Federal Security Controls on Scientific and Technical Information 2 April Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
• Kwik, G., Fitzgerald, J. Inglesby, T. and O'Toole, T. 2003. 'Biosecurity' Biosecurity and Bioterrorism 1(1).
• Leitenberg, M. 2002. Biological Weapons in the Twentieth Century: A Review and Analysis.
• Marburger, J. 2003. 'Perspectives on Balancing National Security and Openness in the Life Sciences' Presented at Meeting on National Security and Research in the Life Sciences National Academies and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, D.C.) 9 January.
• Medline. Bibliographical investigation server about bioterrorism.
• McLeish, C. & P. Nightingale. 2005. Effective Action to Strengthen the BTWC Regime: The Impact of Dual Use Controls on UK Science Bradford Briefing Paper No. 17 (2nd Series). May.
• Ministry of Defence. 1999. Defending Against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons July London: HMSO.
• Morse, S. 2003. 'Bioterror R&D' Presented at Meeting on National Security and Research in the Life Sciences National Academies and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, D.C.) 9 January.
• Mullbacher, A. and N. Logbis 2001. 'Creation of Killer Poxvirus Could have been Predicted' Journal of Virology September: 8353–5.
• New Scientist -- Bioterrorism and Bioweapons Special Report
• New Scientist 2003. 'For Whose Eyes Only?' New Scientist 18 January, pg. 3.
• Nixdorff, K. and W. Bender 2002. Ethics of University Research, Biotechnology and Potential Military Spin-Off. Minerva 40: 15–35.
• Petro, J., T. Plasse and J. McNulty. 2003. ‘Biotechnology: Impact on Biological Warfare and biodefense’ Bioterrorism and Biosecurity 1(3): 161–168.
• Poste, G. 2003. 'The Life Science' Presented at Meeting on National Security and Research in the Life Sciences National Academies and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (Washington, D.C.) 9 January.
• Poste. G. 2004.“Synthetic Biology: Charting Rational Public Policies For the Oversight and Regulation of Vanguard Technologies”, ‘Presentation at the Bio-design Institute ad Arizona State University’, 11th June.
• Relyea, H. 1994. Silencing Science Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
• Shea, D. 2003. Balancing Scientific Publication and National Security Concerns 10 January Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
• Sunshine Project. 2003. US Army Patents Biological Weapons Delivery System, Violates Bioweapons Convention 8 May Austin, TX: Sunshine Project.
• Wheelis, M. and M. Dando. 2003. 'Back to Bioweapons?' Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Jan/Feb.
• Wright, S. (ed) 1990.Preventing A Biological Arms Race Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Zilinskas, R. and Tucker, J. 2002. 'Limiting the Contribution of the Open Scientific Literature to the Biological Weapons Threat' Journal of Homeland Security December.