Remarks for the General Discussion on the right to science organized by the Committee on Social, Economic, and Social Rights (Geneva, Oct. 2018)

1. LIMITATIONS ON SCIENTIFIC ACTIVITIES
ANDREA BOGGIO
Associazione Luca Coscioni (Italy)
Bryant University (USA)
aboggio@bryant.edu

2. Can we limit science because science may be harmful?
1. science falls in the wrongs hands and is misapplied
2. science causes harms directly because of some (usually unintended)
consequences

3. science falls in the wrongs hands and is misapplied
Dual use research
The US government defines it in the life sciences as “research that, based on current
understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information,
products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with
broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other
plants, animals, the environment, materiel, or national security.

4. science falls in the wrongs hands and is misapplied
Dual use research
- Nuclear fission  nuclear weapon
- Synthesis of ammonia from nitrogen gas and hydrogen gas  chemical weapon
- Genetic mutation of H5N1 virus (the Highly Pathogenic Asian Avian Influenza A or, as
many of us probably refer to “bird flu”)  biological weapon

5. science falls in the wrongs hands and is misapplied
Recommendation for the Committee: Limitations on scientific activities
Harmful applications of dual-use research are misapplications rather than applications.
The letter of the Covenant already excludes them from the protections of Article 15 by
referring to the “benefits of scientific progress and its applications.”
Misapplications are not protected.

6. harms directly caused by science
Discussion paper
“… the environmental risks associated with certain scientific developments,
the moral limits of biotechnology and technology’s capacity to affect our privacy,
identity and moral rights through the use of the internet and data processing.”

7. harms directly caused by science
Overall insight
robust safeguards are in place as a result of the development of
internal and external governance, which constantly monitor whether science is
aiming at the right direction, that is, at producing valuable knowledge while
minimizing the risk of scientific developments

8. harms directly caused by science
Science has changed dramatically over the course of the past 70 years
Science has learned from its mistakes (nuclear weapons, eugenics, Nazi
experiments, DDT, …)
Science has become more cautious, conscious of risks, and respectful to the
vulnerable (humans and nonhumans)
Scientists are the driving force behind these changes
(responsible research and innovation (RRI))

9. harms directly caused by science
some evidence of responsible science (1)
DNA recombination manipulation
Paul Berg (2008). Meetings that changed the world: Asilomar 1975: DNA modification
secured. Nature, 455 (7211), 290.
“the people who sounded the alarm about this new line of experimentation were not
politicians, religious groups or journalists, as one might expect: they were scientists.”
Scientists convened in Asilomar in 1975 and “called for a worldwide moratorium on the
work, followed by an international conference of experts at which the nature and
magnitude of the risks could be assessed.”
“In the 33 years since Asilomar, researchers around the world have carried out countless
experiments with recombinant DNA without reported incident.

10. harms directly caused by science
some evidence of responsible science (2)
Discussions of the ethical, legal and social implications of science and technology are
ubiquitous
Topics and number of publications retrieved on Google Scholar
“ethics and artificial intelligence” 9,530 publications 34/day
(17,200 in 2017 + 2018)
“ethics and germline” 6,200 22/day
“ethics and geoengineering” 883 3/day

11. harms directly caused by science
some evidence of responsible science (3)
One could add…
Reproducibility movement
Retractions
Open science (sharing of raw data)
Transparent forms of peer review

12. harms directly caused by science
Societal-level models to govern science
Anticipatory governance
scientific and technological advancements are governed as they emerge
Reflexive governance
no “one solution” but openness towards future possibilities + diversity of approaches
principles
• integrity of purpose
• proportionality of action
• reflexivity

13. harms directly caused by science
Societal-level models to govern science
These mechanisms
- Call for involvement of various segments of society in deliberating
- Are inherently democratic
- Are in line with Article 4 of the Covenant (limitations must “…be determined by law only in
so far as this may be compatible with the nature of these rights and solely to promote the
general welfare in a democratic society”

14. Where does this lead us?
Four lessons
1. Eliminating the risk of science being misused or causing harms is an elusive goal
2. Science has developed a robust set of norms and practices aimed at reducing these risks
3. Laws tend to lag innovation. However, new governance strategies are being developed and
deployed to address the pacing problem
4. These developments are in line with the requirement that limitations promote “the general
welfare in a democratic society.”

15. Where does this lead us?
Recommendations
1. Article 15 already limits the scope of the right to progress that is beneficial. I read this as limiting
the scope of the right to what is correctly applied and excluding what is misapplied.
2. Under Article 15, States must design environments that enable the development and the
diffusion of science. This must be intended as a duty to incentivize integrity of purpose,
proportionality of action, and reflexivity via democratic involvement of various stakeholders and
disincentivize applications that are harmful and non-beneficial.
3. States must proceed in discharging their duties with caution, given the primacy of scientific
freedom, and disincentivize the scientific enterprise only when evidence of its likely misuses or
harmfulness is available.
4. Article 4 identifies all the necessary and sufficient safeguards against the potential misuses or
harms of science. The General Comment should reiterate those safeguards without adding
additional restrictions as they would be unnecessary.

16. Final message
• I sympathize with ambivalent attitudes towards science
• Science is an imperfect, like all human activities
• Nonetheless, we need more science to tackle the
complex challenges of our time