Abstract
This special issue convenes contributions that interrogate the different ethical dimensions of dual use research, a topic increasingly central across disciplines. Traditionally associated with the life sciences and technology, the dual use of research results is now discussed even in areas as abstract as philosophy. This expansion prompts a reconsideration of widely held assumptions about the concept of dual use, moral and institutional responsibility for possible misuse and the scope of research that has dual use potential.
The issue starts with a conceptual article by Hähnel introducing a multidimensional framework for classifying dual use risks. By identifying various factors that render a research output susceptible to misuse, this framework provides a much-needed scaffold for ethical analysis.
Focusing on a national framework, the article by Jacob et al. examines the German approach to managing dual use risks. Emphasizing research freedom coupled with self-regulation, it presents key elements of the process developed by the Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research of German Research Foundation and the German National Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina.
Complementing these conceptual and procedural approaches, two contributions wrestle with questions of responsibility and moral accountability. The article by Heinrichs and Ergin Aslan explores the concept of “agent regret” as a lens through which to assess the aftermath of research misuse. By considering the distribution of ethical responsibility it illuminates the complexities of predicting, preventing, and ascribing responsibility for harmful outcomes. The article by Lev and Keren critiques a position that places sole responsibility on scientists, arguing instead for a shared model of accountability. Their approach challenges the adequacy of the precautionary principle and risk-benefit analysis and calls for a collective, multi-stakeholder effort in addressing dual use concerns.
These overarching approaches are complemented by a set of articles focusing on the dual use risks in specific areas of research. At the philosophical end of the spectrum, the article by Gauckler challenges us to consider whether philosophical research itself can be classified as dual use. The work argues that even abstract reasoning and theory may be misappropriated when its conclusions are not sufficiently conclusive or are detached from the intentions of their originators.
With Brenneis’ article, the issue further expands its focus to the fast-evolving fields of artificial intelligence. It argues for early risk assessments, tailored ethical guidelines, and the proactive role of research ethics committees in navigating dual use dilemmas. The work highlights strategies—such as checklists and pre-registration—to balance AI’s transformative potential against its inherent misuse risks.
Shifting to the intersection of medical research and conflict, the article by Krauel and Frewer explores how advances in AI, neurotechnology, and neuroenhancement might be repurposed for military ends. Against the backdrop of current armed conflicts, it calls for international coordination and heightened awareness to prevent the harmful consequences of dual-use research in sensitive domains.
Focusing on biomedical innovation, the article by Kropf distinguishes between dual use challenges and slippery slope arguments by using CRISPR-Cas9 as a case study. Through clear definitions and comparative analysis, it elucidates the nuanced ethical debates surrounding genome editing and informs broader discussions on responsible research conduct.
Together, these articles map a comprehensive ethical landscape that compels us to rethink how ethical oversight is integrated into research practices. This special issue presents the results of a summer school on the topic of Dual Use and Misuse of Research Results, which was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (01GP2187). It complements the guideline formulated there (Heinrichs et al., 2025) and provides a vital foundation for informed policy-making and ethical stewardship in a rapidly evolving research environment.