Do you work in the life sciences or related fields? Do you know that your work may be subject to both ancient taboos and modern international and national laws proscribing poisoning and the deliberate spread of infectious disease?

Advances in the life sciences hold great promise for humanity. There is also great risk if these same advances are put to hostile use. History shows that new scientific advances are often used to develop weapons.

Biological and chemical weapons have long been considered abhorrent and a number of international treaties are designed to prevent poisoning and deliberate spread of infectious disease. These treaties are: the 1925 Geneva Protocol (prohibiting the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and bacteriological methods of warfare); the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. In most countries, domestic laws reflect these treaties. However, responsibility to uphold the legal and ethical norms is not confined to governments. No actor in the life sciences can claim to be maximising the benefit of his or her work for humanity without also acting in support of the relevant laws and taking steps to minimise the risk of misuse of their work.

If measures to prevent the hostile use of advances in the life sciences are to work, a culture of responsibility is necessary among individual life scientists. This applies whether these scientists are working in industry, academia, health, defence or in related fields such as engineering and information technology. Such a culture of responsibility is also needed within the institutions that employ scientists and fund research in the life sciences.

These Principles of Practice, if widely accepted, would form part of a multidisciplinary preventive framework. Their recognition should maximize the benefits of research in life sciences and its application for humanity, while minimizing the risk of hostile use of advances in this domain. The corresponding action points attempt to link the principles to practical measures.

The Principles of Practice have been developed through a consultative process with experts in science and policy matters. They are not intended to impose yet more regulation on legitimate science. They provide a suggested framework for discussions and decisions on, for example, research, research proposals, funding, publication, contracts of employment for scientists, health and safety procedures, professional practice, peer-review processes and educational programmes.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) would be pleased to receive comments on these Principles of Practice which may be further developed in the future. Please send your comments by .