There is a growing field of medicine today that can be referred to as “therapeutic toxins,” an apparent oxymoron. Substances that are normally thought of as toxins are finding increasing use as therapeutic medicinals. It is this increasing use of toxins in medicine that Jonathan Tucker has raised as an important issue in a recent article in Politics and the Life Sciences (1994).

The term “dual-use” toxins refers to a number of naturally occurring poisons that are finding increasing application in medical therapeutics and biomedical research but also have the potential for misuse as weapons of war and terrorism. Dr. Harsanyi's thought-provoking critique of my recent article on dual-use toxins deserves a detailed response. First, I apologize for quoting him out of context. In my defense, however, his referenced article (Harsanyi, 1992) does not make a clear distinction between the potential diversion of dual-use toxins by the intended customers—physicians and research scientists—or by toxin manufacturers. It is a subset of the latter, of course, that pose the greatest risk with respect to the potential misuse of toxins for nefarious purposes.

The Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) has primary responsibility within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for developing and implementing policies, procedures, and regulations for the protection of human subjects involved in research. It also has primary responsibility within the U.S. Public Health Service for developing and implementing policies and procedures for the care and use of laboratory animals. And, it has responsibility for coordinating the development and implementation of policies, procedures, and regulations for the protection of human subjects involved in research for all U.S. federal departments and agencies that conduct or support such research.