{"title":"“没有令人痛苦的初步准备”的杀戮:科学家为英国生物战计划辩护。","authors":"Brian Balmer","doi":"10.1023/a:1015009613250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article presents historical cases in which British scientists, principally scientific advisors, have attempted to defend research on biological weapons. Although the historical record is scant, there is a degree of continuity in their justifications, and a number of themes can be identified. It was argued, that biological weapons research is morally justified because it produces humane weapons; that it is no different from medical or other research; and that is being performed for defensive purposes. It is argued that this defence is directed primarily towards other scientists working on germ warfare, and was formed part of the 'moral economy' of that secret community.</p>","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":"40 1","pages":"57-75"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/a:1015009613250","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Killing 'without the distressing preliminaries': Scientists' defence of the British biological warfare programme.\",\"authors\":\"Brian Balmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1023/a:1015009613250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article presents historical cases in which British scientists, principally scientific advisors, have attempted to defend research on biological weapons. Although the historical record is scant, there is a degree of continuity in their justifications, and a number of themes can be identified. It was argued, that biological weapons research is morally justified because it produces humane weapons; that it is no different from medical or other research; and that is being performed for defensive purposes. It is argued that this defence is directed primarily towards other scientists working on germ warfare, and was formed part of the 'moral economy' of that secret community.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47427,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Minerva\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"57-75\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1023/a:1015009613250\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Minerva\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015009613250\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015009613250","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Killing 'without the distressing preliminaries': Scientists' defence of the British biological warfare programme.
This article presents historical cases in which British scientists, principally scientific advisors, have attempted to defend research on biological weapons. Although the historical record is scant, there is a degree of continuity in their justifications, and a number of themes can be identified. It was argued, that biological weapons research is morally justified because it produces humane weapons; that it is no different from medical or other research; and that is being performed for defensive purposes. It is argued that this defence is directed primarily towards other scientists working on germ warfare, and was formed part of the 'moral economy' of that secret community.
期刊介绍:
Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures and institutions in science, higher education and research. It is concerned no less with history than with present practice, and with the local as well as the global. It speaks to the scholar, the teacher, the policy-maker and the administrator. It features articles, essay reviews and ''special'' issues on themes of topical importance. It represents no single school of thought, but welcomes diversity, within the rules of rational discourse. Its contributions are peer-reviewed. Its audience is world-wide.