Balancing Innovation and Safety: Frameworks and Considerations for the Governance of Dual-Use Research of Concern and Potential Pandemic Pathogens.

IF 0.7
David R Gillum
{"title":"Balancing Innovation and Safety: Frameworks and Considerations for the Governance of Dual-Use Research of Concern and Potential Pandemic Pathogens.","authors":"David R Gillum","doi":"10.1089/apb.2024.0033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Governance of high-risk biological research, specifically dual-use research of concern (DURC) and pathogens with enhanced pandemic potential (PEPP), is a topic of renewed interest. This study considers the historical evolution of biosecurity policies, highlighting current challenges in balancing scientific progress with national security and public safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A historical analysis and a literature review were conducted, examining significant events and policy developments shaping biosafety and biosecurity in the United States. The study also reviews possible frameworks for governing DURC and PEPP, assessing ethical, political, and regulatory perspectives from relevant literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Findings indicate that biosafety and biosecurity policies have historically been reactionary, responding to specific incidents rather than proactively managing risks. Despite significant policy efforts, gaps in transparency, oversight, and international collaboration persist, raising concerns about the effectiveness of governance structures. However, looking at past frameworks for managing high-risk biotechnological risks may be beneficial in establishing future governance strategies.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The study suggests the need for a balanced approach that integrates ethical, social, legal, and other considerations to ensure robust oversight of DURC and PEPP. Continuous policy evolution, informed by empirical evidence and interdisciplinary collaboration, is needed for mitigating risks associated with high-stakes biological research.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Effective governance of DURC and PEPP requires comprehensive, interdisciplinary approaches that incorporate historical lessons, ethical considerations, and adaptive policymaking. Collaboration between policymakers, scientists, biosafety and biosecurity professionals, as well as members of the public, is required to ensure scientific innovation benefits national security and public health while minimizing risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":520561,"journal":{"name":"Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association","volume":"30 2","pages":"69-78"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12183502/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2024.0033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Governance of high-risk biological research, specifically dual-use research of concern (DURC) and pathogens with enhanced pandemic potential (PEPP), is a topic of renewed interest. This study considers the historical evolution of biosecurity policies, highlighting current challenges in balancing scientific progress with national security and public safety.

Methods: A historical analysis and a literature review were conducted, examining significant events and policy developments shaping biosafety and biosecurity in the United States. The study also reviews possible frameworks for governing DURC and PEPP, assessing ethical, political, and regulatory perspectives from relevant literature.

Results: Findings indicate that biosafety and biosecurity policies have historically been reactionary, responding to specific incidents rather than proactively managing risks. Despite significant policy efforts, gaps in transparency, oversight, and international collaboration persist, raising concerns about the effectiveness of governance structures. However, looking at past frameworks for managing high-risk biotechnological risks may be beneficial in establishing future governance strategies.

Discussion: The study suggests the need for a balanced approach that integrates ethical, social, legal, and other considerations to ensure robust oversight of DURC and PEPP. Continuous policy evolution, informed by empirical evidence and interdisciplinary collaboration, is needed for mitigating risks associated with high-stakes biological research.

Conclusion: Effective governance of DURC and PEPP requires comprehensive, interdisciplinary approaches that incorporate historical lessons, ethical considerations, and adaptive policymaking. Collaboration between policymakers, scientists, biosafety and biosecurity professionals, as well as members of the public, is required to ensure scientific innovation benefits national security and public health while minimizing risks.

平衡创新和安全:关注和潜在大流行病原体两用研究的治理框架和考虑。
背景:高风险生物研究的治理,特别是双重用途关注研究(DURC)和具有增强大流行潜力的病原体(PEPP),是一个重新引起人们兴趣的话题。本研究考虑了生物安全政策的历史演变,突出了当前在平衡科学进步与国家安全和公共安全方面的挑战。方法:进行历史分析和文献综述,检查影响美国生物安全和生物安全的重大事件和政策发展。本研究还回顾了管理DURC和pep的可能框架,从相关文献中评估伦理、政治和监管角度。结果:研究结果表明,生物安全和生物安全政策历来是被动的,对特定事件作出反应,而不是主动管理风险。尽管做出了重大的政策努力,但透明度、监督和国际合作方面的差距仍然存在,这引起了人们对治理结构有效性的担忧。然而,回顾过去管理高风险生物技术风险的框架可能有助于建立未来的治理战略。讨论:该研究表明需要一种平衡的方法,将伦理、社会、法律和其他考虑因素结合起来,以确保对DURC和PEPP进行强有力的监督。为了减轻与高风险生物学研究相关的风险,需要在经验证据和跨学科合作的指导下,持续不断地发展政策。结论:DURC和PEPP的有效治理需要综合的、跨学科的方法,包括历史教训、伦理考虑和适应性政策制定。决策者、科学家、生物安全和生物安全专业人员以及公众之间需要进行合作,以确保科学创新有利于国家安全和公共卫生,同时最大限度地降低风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信