% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Heinrichs:1030923,
      author       = {Heinrichs, Jan-Hendrik and Aslan, Serap Ergin},
      title        = {{A}gent regret and the moral responsibility for the misuse
                      of research results},
      journal      = {Research ethics},
      volume       = {21},
      number       = {2},
      issn         = {1747-0161},
      address      = {London [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Sage Publ.},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2024-05516},
      pages        = {245-266},
      year         = {2024},
      note         = {The project has been funded by the German Ministry für
                      Education and Research (BMBF) Project DUMFE (Dual Use and
                      Misuse of Research Results), 01GP2187},
      abstract     = {An increasing number of research fields must expect that
                      their projects will be classified as susceptible to misuse
                      or otherwise security relevant, even if the reasons or
                      criteria for this classification have not yet been uniformly
                      developed. Research institutions will commonly distribute
                      the obligation to predict and prevent misuse across multiple
                      members and structures including ethics committees. However,
                      cases of misuse occur even in spite of these precautions,
                      raising the question of the type and distribution of
                      responsibility for the resulting harm. This question becomes
                      even more pressing if research ethics committees in their
                      decisions ask researchers to provide a misuse- specific risk
                      assessment or risk mitigation plan and thereby shift back a
                      part of their responsibility on the researchers. While this
                      kind of requirement may be considered as unsatisfactory by
                      researchers, members of research ethics committees or boards
                      and third-party funders, will argue that it fulfils two
                      important functions. On the one hand, it makes use of the
                      best available source for misuse risk-assessment available
                      to most committees; on the other hand, it guarantees that
                      the researchers at least try to take responsibility. If
                      researchers, committee members and others involved discharge
                      their obligation to predict and mitigate misuse risks with
                      due diligence, any backward-looking responsibility they
                      retain is to show agent regret for the results of their work
                      having been misused.},
      cin          = {INM-7},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-7-20090406},
      pnm          = {5255 - Neuroethics and Ethics of Information (POF4-525)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-5255},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:001299423100001},
      doi          = {10.1177/17470161241272760},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1030923},
}