Applied Ethics and Professional Frameworks of Biosecurity Governance in Confronting Bioterrorism

Authors

1 Department of Law, La.C., Islamic Azad University, Lahijan, Iran

2 Department of Islamic Studies, Ra.C., Islamic Azad University, Rasht, Iran

3 Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Mar.C., Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran

10.22081/jare.2026.74346.2147

Abstract

Rapid advances in the life sciences and the expansion of technologies such as synthetic biology,genome editing, and dual-use research have fundamentally transformed the boundarybetween scientific progress and security risks.Under these circumstances, bioterrorism threatsnot only pose new challenges for health policymaking but also highlight the need to move beyond traditional frameworks of medical ethics toward applied ethics and professional frameworks in biosecurity governance.The central issue of this study is to achieve a balance between biosecurity requirements aimed at protecting public health and the preservation of human rights and dignity; a challenge that transforms the management of bioterrorism from a purely regulatory response into an ethical and professional imperativeUsing a descriptive-analytical approach and relying on library-based sources, this study distinguishes between biosafety as the prevention of unintentional biological risks and biosecurity as the prevention of deliberate misuse of biological agents. It further examines the major ethical and professional challenges associated with dual-use research, the tension between scientific freedom and public security, distributive justice in the allocation of health resources, transparency in policymaking, and the responsibilities of scientific institutions.The findings indicate that traditional approaches based on strict control and authoritarian measures are insufficient, as they fail to account for the dynamic and evolving nature of contemporary biotechnologies.In response,the study proposes an intelligent, multilayered, and practice-oriented governance model grounded in responsible transparency,continuous risk–benefit assessment, and interdisciplinary oversight.The implementationof such an operational framework can, while safeguarding scientific freedom and fundamental rights, provide the necessary foundation for proactive, responsible, and professionally guided responses to bioterrorism threats.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Akshaya, S. (2025). Medical ethics and bioterrorism: Emerging challenges. Indian Journal of Legal Review, 5 (14), pp. 729–743.
Inglesby, T. V. (2014). Pandemic influenza and the H5N1 research controversy. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 12 (1), pp. 17–22.
Kohrs, B. (2003). Bioterrorism defense: Are state mandated compulsory vaccination programs an infringement upon a citizen's constitutional rights. Journal of Law and Health, 17 (2), pp. 241–270.
Loike, J. D., & Fischbach, R. L. (2013). Ethical challenges in biodefense and bioterrorism. Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense, S12, 002. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-2526.S12-002.
Molina, C., Toro A, R., Manzano, C. A., Canepari, S., Massimi, L., & Leiva-Guzmán, M. A. (2020). Airborne aerosols and human health: Leapfrogging from mass concentration to oxidative potential. Atmosphere, 11 (9), p. 917.
Ou, Y., & Guo, S. (2023). Safety risks and ethical governance of biomedical applications of synthetic biology. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 11, 1292029.
Resnik, D. B. (2024). Biosafety, biosecurity, and bioethics. Monash Bioethics Review, 42 (1), pp. 137–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-024-00204-3.
Salloch, S. (2018). The dual use of research ethics committees: Why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity. BMC Medical Ethics, 19, 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0295-0.
Selgelid, M. J. (2009). Governance of dual-use research: An ethical dilemma. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 87 (1), pp. 59–60, doi: 10.2471/BLT.08.051383.
Selgelid, M. J. (2016). Gain-of-function research: Ethical analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22 (4), pp. 923–964.
Sidel, V. W. (1991). Biological weapons research and physicians: Historical and ethical analysis. PSR Quarterly, 1 (1), pp. 31–62.
Singh, A. (2024). CRISPR-Cas9 in bioterrorism: Potential misuses and mitigation strategies. Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense, 15, p. 402.
Upshur, R. (2003). The ethics of quarantine. Virtual Mentor, 5 (11), pp. 523–526.
UNESCO. (2022). Ethical issues of neurotechnology: Report of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO (IBC), adopted in December 2021. Paris, France: UNESCO.
Xue, Y., Shang, L., & Zhang, W. (2021). Building and implementing a multi-level system of ethical code for biologists under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) of the United Nations. Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity, 3 (2), pp. 108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobb.2021.09.001.
 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 26 September 2025
  • Revise Date: 01 December 2025
  • Accept Date: 18 December 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics