Building biosecurity for synthetic biology.

The fast-paced field of synthetic biology is fundamentally changing the global biosecurity framework. Current biosecurity regulations and strategies are based on previous governance paradigms for pathogen-oriented security, recombinant DNA research, and broader concerns related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Many scholarly discussions and biosecurity practitioners are therefore concerned that synthetic biology outpaces established biosafety and biosecurity measures to prevent deliberate and malicious or inadvertent and accidental misuse of synthetic biology's processes or products. This commentary proposes three strategies to improve biosecurity: Security must be treated as an investment in the future applicability of the technology; social scientists and policy makers should be engaged early in technology development and forecasting; and coordination among global stakeholders is necessary to ensure acceptable levels of risk

Complementarity of International Instruments in the Field of Biosecurity.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the devastating impact of infectious disease outbreaks and the threat of emerging and re-emerging dangerous pathogens, independent of their origin. Natural, accidental, and deliberate disease outbreaks all need systems in place for an effective public health response. The best known international instrument in the field of public health is the WHO International Health Regulations (2005). Although the International Health Regulations are mainly focused on natural disease outbreaks, the actions to take to comply with them also contribute to biosecurity and non-proliferation. This paper examines in case of full implementation of the International Health Regulations, what other actions states should take to comply with international biosecurity instruments, including the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, to effectively prevent and defend against intentional biological threats. An overview of international instruments from different disciplines regarding biosecurity is presented. Furthermore, this paper clarifies the similarities between the international biosecurity instruments and addresses the additional requirements that instruments stipulate. From a detailed comparison between the instruments it can be concluded that, to adhere to all legally-binding international biosecurity instruments, specific non-proliferation and export control measures are necessary in addition to full implementation of the International Health Regulations. Additionally, an overview of non-legally binding instruments in the field of biosecurity is presented and practical implementation examples are highlighted. Compliance with legally binding instruments can be improved by precise guidance provided by non-legally binding instruments that are clear and attuned to the situation on the ground. To improve understanding of the existing international instruments, this paper aims to provide an overview of the international legal biosecurity framework to biosecurity experts, policymakers, civil servants, and practitioners. It offers possible practical applications for the politico-legal context and accommodates the enhancement of full employment of biosecurity resources for an improved multidisciplinary capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks

Emerging Biotechnology and Information Hazards

Biotechnology innovation has never been more accessible to individuals, companies, and (research)organizations. Advances in genetic engineering, declining costs, and improved education have improved access to biotechnologies. Such openness has provided many benefits as biotechnology has been used to address some of the world’s most intractable problems However, increased access to biotechnology tools and knowledge may also pose risks to humans, animals, and the environment (Meyer 2013; Kera 2014; Li et al. 2017; Oye 2012)

Systematic approach towards establishing a National Inventory of Dangerous Pathogens.

International regulations stipulate that countries need to organize their biosafety and biosecurity systems to minimize the risk of accidental (biosafety) or malicious intentional (biosecurity) release of dangerous pathogens. International Health Regulations (IHR) benchmarks from the WHO state that even for a level of limited capacity countries need to ‘Identify and document human and animal health facilities that store/maintain dangerous pathogens and toxins in the relevant sectors and health professionals responsible for them’. This study provides a stepwise, systematic approach and best practices for countries to initiate a national inventory of dangerous pathogens. With a national inventory of dangerous pathogens a country can identify and document information in a dedicated electronic database on institutes that store or maintain dangerous pathogens. The systematic approach for the implementation of a national inventory of dangerous pathogens consists of four stages; identification, preparation, implementation, and maintenance and evaluation. In the identification phase, commitment of the relevant national ministries is to be established, and a responsible government entity needs to be identified. In the preparatory phase, a list of pathogens to be incorporated in the inventory, as well as a list of institutes to include, is to be agreed upon. In the implementation phase, the institutes are contacted, and the collected data is stored safely and securely in a electronical database. Finally, in the maintenance and evaluation phase meaningful insights are derived and reported to the relevant government authorities. Also, preparations for updates and modifications are undertaken, such as modifications of pathogen lists or institute lists. The approach and database, which is available from the authors, have been tested for the implementation of a national inventory of dangerous pathogens in multiple East-African countries. A national inventory of dangerous pathogens helps countries in strengthening national biosafety and biosecurity as well as in their compliance to IHR

Dual-Use Quickscan: A Web-Based Tool to Assess the Dual-Use Potential of Life Science Research.

Research on pathogenic organisms is crucial for medical, biological and agricultural developments. However, biological agents as well as associated knowledge and techniques, can also be misused, for example for the development of biological weapons. Potential malicious use of well-intended research, referred to as “dual-use research”, poses a threat to public health and the environment. There are various international resources providing frameworks to assess dual-use potential of the research concerned. However, concrete instructions for researchers on how to perform a dual-use risk assessment is largely lacking. The international need for practical dual-use monitoring and risk assessment instructions, in addition to the need to raise awareness among scientists about potential dual-use aspects of their research has been identified over the last years by the Netherlands Biosecurity Office, through consulting national and international biorisk stakeholders. We identified that Biorisk Management Advisors and researchers need a practical tool to facilitate a dual-use assessment on their specific research. Therefore, the Netherlands Biosecurity Office developed a web-based Dual-Use Quickscan (www.dualusequickscan.com), that can be used periodically by researchers working with microorganisms to assess potential dual-use risks of their research by answering a set of fifteen yes/no questions. The questions for the tool were extracted from existing international open resources, and categorized into three themes: characteristics of the biological agent, knowledge and technology about the biological agent, and consequences of misuse. The results of the Quickscan provide the researcher with an indication of the dual-use potential of the research and can be used as a basis for further discussions with a Biorisk Management Advisor. The Dual-Use Quickscan can be embedded in a broader system of biosafety and biosecurity that includes dual-use monitoring and awareness within organizations. Increased international attention to examine pathogens with pandemic potential has been enhanced by the current COVID-19 pandemic, hence monitoring of dual-use potential urgently needs to be encouraged

Embrace experimentation in biosecurity governance.

We must rethink and test assumptions about relationships among biological research, security, and societ