未满足的期望:生命科学家对生物风险和责任的看法。

Daniel Greene, David A Relman, Megan J Palmer
{"title":"未满足的期望:生命科学家对生物风险和责任的看法。","authors":"Daniel Greene, David A Relman, Megan J Palmer","doi":"10.1089/apb.2024.0052","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>United States and global guidance documents and codes of conduct urge life scientists to practice a \"culture of responsibility\" by proactively managing the potential biosafety, biosecurity, and dual-use information risks of their work. However, research suggests that many life scientists are unfamiliar with or disengaged from aspects of biorisk management. To better understand life scientists' beliefs and attitudes about biorisk management, we conducted a survey with 127 researchers at a prestigious U.S. university who directly manipulate DNA or RNA in living organisms, cells, and/or viruses. We found that while participants were broadly positive about their efforts to address risks and expressed a sense of responsibility to do so, most failed to meet the expectations that they hold for how often a typical scientist in their research community should consider biosafety, biosecurity, or dual-use information risks. Faculty were more likely to meet their expectations than non-faculty, and all participants were more likely to meet their expectations considering biosafety risks compared with biosecurity or dual-use information risks. Most non-faculty said that they have \"never or almost never\" considered the risk of deliberate misuse or information release with their lab. Outside of mandatory biosafety training, few had received formal education about biorisks or discussed them at lab meetings. Career incentives and the logistical burdens of biorisk management were noted as reasons for disengagement. Our results suggest that by their own standards, U.S. life scientists have significant room for improvement in their capacity for proactive biorisk management, particularly regarding biosecurity and dual-use information risks.</p>","PeriodicalId":520561,"journal":{"name":"Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association","volume":"30 2","pages":"112-123"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12179379/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unmet Expectations: Life Scientists' Views on Biorisk and Responsibility.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Greene, David A Relman, Megan J Palmer\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/apb.2024.0052\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>United States and global guidance documents and codes of conduct urge life scientists to practice a \\\"culture of responsibility\\\" by proactively managing the potential biosafety, biosecurity, and dual-use information risks of their work. However, research suggests that many life scientists are unfamiliar with or disengaged from aspects of biorisk management. To better understand life scientists' beliefs and attitudes about biorisk management, we conducted a survey with 127 researchers at a prestigious U.S. university who directly manipulate DNA or RNA in living organisms, cells, and/or viruses. We found that while participants were broadly positive about their efforts to address risks and expressed a sense of responsibility to do so, most failed to meet the expectations that they hold for how often a typical scientist in their research community should consider biosafety, biosecurity, or dual-use information risks. Faculty were more likely to meet their expectations than non-faculty, and all participants were more likely to meet their expectations considering biosafety risks compared with biosecurity or dual-use information risks. Most non-faculty said that they have \\\"never or almost never\\\" considered the risk of deliberate misuse or information release with their lab. Outside of mandatory biosafety training, few had received formal education about biorisks or discussed them at lab meetings. Career incentives and the logistical burdens of biorisk management were noted as reasons for disengagement. Our results suggest that by their own standards, U.S. life scientists have significant room for improvement in their capacity for proactive biorisk management, particularly regarding biosecurity and dual-use information risks.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520561,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association\",\"volume\":\"30 2\",\"pages\":\"112-123\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12179379/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.2024.0052\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2024.0052","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

摘要

美国和全球的指导文件和行为准则敦促生命科学家通过主动管理其工作中潜在的生物安全、生物安保和双重用途信息风险来实践一种“责任文化”。然而,研究表明,许多生命科学家不熟悉或脱离生物风险管理的各个方面。为了更好地了解生命科学家对生物风险管理的信念和态度,我们对美国一所著名大学的127名直接操纵活生物体、细胞和/或病毒中的DNA或RNA的研究人员进行了调查。我们发现,虽然参与者普遍对他们解决风险的努力持积极态度,并表达了这样做的责任感,但大多数人未能达到他们对研究界的典型科学家应该多久考虑一次生物安全、生物安保或双重用途信息风险的期望。教师比非教师更有可能满足他们的期望,与生物安全或军民两用信息风险相比,所有参与者都更有可能满足他们的期望。大多数非教职员工表示,他们“从未或几乎从未”考虑过故意误用或在实验室发布信息的风险。除了强制性的生物安全培训,很少有人接受过关于生物风险的正规教育,也很少有人在实验室会议上讨论过这些问题。职业激励和生物风险管理的后勤负担被认为是离职的原因。我们的研究结果表明,按照他们自己的标准,美国生命科学家在主动生物风险管理能力方面有很大的改进空间,特别是在生物安全和双重用途信息风险方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unmet Expectations: Life Scientists' Views on Biorisk and Responsibility.

United States and global guidance documents and codes of conduct urge life scientists to practice a "culture of responsibility" by proactively managing the potential biosafety, biosecurity, and dual-use information risks of their work. However, research suggests that many life scientists are unfamiliar with or disengaged from aspects of biorisk management. To better understand life scientists' beliefs and attitudes about biorisk management, we conducted a survey with 127 researchers at a prestigious U.S. university who directly manipulate DNA or RNA in living organisms, cells, and/or viruses. We found that while participants were broadly positive about their efforts to address risks and expressed a sense of responsibility to do so, most failed to meet the expectations that they hold for how often a typical scientist in their research community should consider biosafety, biosecurity, or dual-use information risks. Faculty were more likely to meet their expectations than non-faculty, and all participants were more likely to meet their expectations considering biosafety risks compared with biosecurity or dual-use information risks. Most non-faculty said that they have "never or almost never" considered the risk of deliberate misuse or information release with their lab. Outside of mandatory biosafety training, few had received formal education about biorisks or discussed them at lab meetings. Career incentives and the logistical burdens of biorisk management were noted as reasons for disengagement. Our results suggest that by their own standards, U.S. life scientists have significant room for improvement in their capacity for proactive biorisk management, particularly regarding biosecurity and dual-use information risks.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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