The Evolution of United States Governance Policies for Research Using Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential.

Gerald L Epstein
{"title":"The Evolution of United States Governance Policies for Research Using Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential.","authors":"Gerald L Epstein","doi":"10.1089/apb.2024.0049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prompted by publications in 2012 involving the enhancement of a highly virulent but poorly transmissible human pathogen to make it more transmissible, the research community and the U.S. government have implemented policies to oversee research involving enhanced pathogens that pose the risk of causing a pandemic.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This article reviews the evolution of policies governing high consequence, government-funded research that has been called \"gain-of-function-research-of-concern,\" research with \"enhanced potential pandemic pathogens\" (ePPPs), and research with \"pathogens with enhanced pandemic potential\" (PEPPs). It analyzes features that these policies share and points out some of their shortcomings, challenges, and ambiguities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>These policies, culminating in the 2024 United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual-Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential, all define a set of consequential research activities that trigger the need for additional high-level review, and they all set out principles that must be satisfied before the research can be funded.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The 2024 policy, like its predecessors, only applies to government-funded research. Extending it to cover privately funded research would require either new regulations under existing statutory authority or new legislation. Like its predecessors, the 2024 policy requires that the benefits of PEPP research justify its potential pandemic risk. Unlike its predecessors, however, the 2024 policy is missing an important principle that prevents construction of a pandemic pathogen that-were it not for its creation in the proposed research-would have little likelihood of ever causing an actual pandemic.</p>","PeriodicalId":520561,"journal":{"name":"Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association","volume":"30 2","pages":"79-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12179363/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.2024.0049","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: Prompted by publications in 2012 involving the enhancement of a highly virulent but poorly transmissible human pathogen to make it more transmissible, the research community and the U.S. government have implemented policies to oversee research involving enhanced pathogens that pose the risk of causing a pandemic.

Method: This article reviews the evolution of policies governing high consequence, government-funded research that has been called "gain-of-function-research-of-concern," research with "enhanced potential pandemic pathogens" (ePPPs), and research with "pathogens with enhanced pandemic potential" (PEPPs). It analyzes features that these policies share and points out some of their shortcomings, challenges, and ambiguities.

Results: These policies, culminating in the 2024 United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual-Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential, all define a set of consequential research activities that trigger the need for additional high-level review, and they all set out principles that must be satisfied before the research can be funded.

Conclusion: The 2024 policy, like its predecessors, only applies to government-funded research. Extending it to cover privately funded research would require either new regulations under existing statutory authority or new legislation. Like its predecessors, the 2024 policy requires that the benefits of PEPP research justify its potential pandemic risk. Unlike its predecessors, however, the 2024 policy is missing an important principle that prevents construction of a pandemic pathogen that-were it not for its creation in the proposed research-would have little likelihood of ever causing an actual pandemic.

美国对利用具有增强大流行潜力的病原体进行研究的治理政策的演变。
背景:受2012年发表的一篇涉及增强一种高毒力但传染性较差的人类病原体使其更具传染性的文章的推动,研究界和美国政府已实施政策,监督涉及可能导致大流行的增强病原体的研究。方法:本文回顾了政府资助的高后果研究的政策演变,这些研究被称为“功能获得-关注研究”、“潜在大流行病原体增强研究”(ePPPs)和“潜在大流行病原体增强研究”(PEPPs)。本文分析了这些策略共有的特点,并指出了它们的一些缺点、挑战和不明确之处。结果:这些政策最终形成了2024年《美国政府关于关注的两用研究和具有增强大流行潜力的病原体的监督政策》,它们都定义了一系列后续研究活动,这些活动触发了额外的高级别审查的需要,并且它们都规定了在研究获得资助之前必须满足的原则。结论:与之前的政策一样,2024政策只适用于政府资助的研究。将其扩展到私人资助的研究将需要根据现有的法定权力或新的立法制定新的规定。与之前的政策一样,2024年的政策要求PEPP研究的好处证明其潜在的大流行风险是合理的。然而,与之前的政策不同,2024政策遗漏了一个重要的原则,即防止大流行病原体的形成,如果不是在拟议的研究中创造出这种病原体,这种病原体几乎不可能引起真正的大流行。
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