Examining the role of Science and Technology reviews in the Biological Weapons Convention
Examining the role of Science and Technology reviews in the Biological Weapons Convention
James Revill presented some of the project findings to the 33rd Workshop of the Pugwash Study Group on the Implementation of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions, titled “Achieving Realistic Decisions at the Seventh BWC Review Conference in 2011”, which was held in Geneva, Switzerland, on the 3 and 4 of December 2011. A paper titled “So you want to do ‘something’ on Science and Technology reviews in the Biological Weapons Convention?” draws on the data collected as part of a Harvard Sussex Program (HSP) project on examining the role of science and technology reviews in the BWC and provides an overview of some of the key findings. The paper also highlights some additional issues that States Parties might wish to consider including leadership, consensus, costs, communication and allocation of time.
The discussion in the Pugwash group generated a number of questions related to science and technology reviews including: the relevance of science and technology to different articles of the BWC; the role of oversight under the Convention; the role of external scientists and industry; and the possibility of such a group being able to make recommendations.
The paper authored by Revill and Mcleish is available from the following link So you want to do ‘something’ on Science and Technology reviews in the Biological Weapons Convention?
A rapporteurs summary of the Pugwash meeting which elaborates on these areas of discussion will be available soon.
