David R Gillum, An Tran, Jennifer Fletcher, Kathleen M Vogel
{"title":"Bridging biosafety and biosecurity gaps: DURC and ePPP policy insights from U.S. institutions.","authors":"David R Gillum, An Tran, Jennifer Fletcher, Kathleen M Vogel","doi":"10.3389/fbioe.2024.1476527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Overview: </strong>This study provides empirical data on the knowledge and practices of biosafety and biosecurity professionals and researchers involved in research on enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens (ePPPs) and Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) within various U.S. sectors. The goal is to improve public health interventions and oversight for DURC and ePPP, contributing valuable insights for policy development. A notable finding was the association between larger biosafety/biosecurity teams and a higher likelihood of conducting high-risk biological research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey of 541 biosafety and biosecurity professionals was conducted between March 8 and 10 April 2024, with results analyzed using SAS at a significance level of 0.05. The study received approval from the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) at Arizona State University and the University of Nevada, Reno.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Government organizations were more likely to conduct DURC compared to other sectors (e.g., Academic, Commercial, Consulting). Public institutions reviewed more experiments outside the scope of the U.S. DURC Policy than private for-profit institutions. Institutions with larger biosafety/biosecurity teams reported greater research activity and more effective non-compliance reporting mechanisms (e.g., anonymous hotlines, reporting forms). Additionally, financial support and the challenges of policy implementation varied significantly across sectors.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The findings emphasize the need for appropriate staffing and resource allocation for high-risk biosafety and biosecurity research. A differentiated regulatory approach and equitable distribution of resources are essential for effective oversight. Moreover, robust non-compliance reporting systems are critical to mitigating the risks associated with DURC and ePPP research.</p>","PeriodicalId":12444,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11467424/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2024.1476527","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Overview: This study provides empirical data on the knowledge and practices of biosafety and biosecurity professionals and researchers involved in research on enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens (ePPPs) and Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) within various U.S. sectors. The goal is to improve public health interventions and oversight for DURC and ePPP, contributing valuable insights for policy development. A notable finding was the association between larger biosafety/biosecurity teams and a higher likelihood of conducting high-risk biological research.
Methods: A survey of 541 biosafety and biosecurity professionals was conducted between March 8 and 10 April 2024, with results analyzed using SAS at a significance level of 0.05. The study received approval from the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) at Arizona State University and the University of Nevada, Reno.
Results: Government organizations were more likely to conduct DURC compared to other sectors (e.g., Academic, Commercial, Consulting). Public institutions reviewed more experiments outside the scope of the U.S. DURC Policy than private for-profit institutions. Institutions with larger biosafety/biosecurity teams reported greater research activity and more effective non-compliance reporting mechanisms (e.g., anonymous hotlines, reporting forms). Additionally, financial support and the challenges of policy implementation varied significantly across sectors.
Discussion: The findings emphasize the need for appropriate staffing and resource allocation for high-risk biosafety and biosecurity research. A differentiated regulatory approach and equitable distribution of resources are essential for effective oversight. Moreover, robust non-compliance reporting systems are critical to mitigating the risks associated with DURC and ePPP research.
期刊介绍:
The translation of new discoveries in medicine to clinical routine has never been easy. During the second half of the last century, thanks to the progress in chemistry, biochemistry and pharmacology, we have seen the development and the application of a large number of drugs and devices aimed at the treatment of symptoms, blocking unwanted pathways and, in the case of infectious diseases, fighting the micro-organisms responsible. However, we are facing, today, a dramatic change in the therapeutic approach to pathologies and diseases. Indeed, the challenge of the present and the next decade is to fully restore the physiological status of the diseased organism and to completely regenerate tissue and organs when they are so seriously affected that treatments cannot be limited to the repression of symptoms or to the repair of damage. This is being made possible thanks to the major developments made in basic cell and molecular biology, including stem cell science, growth factor delivery, gene isolation and transfection, the advances in bioengineering and nanotechnology, including development of new biomaterials, biofabrication technologies and use of bioreactors, and the big improvements in diagnostic tools and imaging of cells, tissues and organs.
In today`s world, an enhancement of communication between multidisciplinary experts, together with the promotion of joint projects and close collaborations among scientists, engineers, industry people, regulatory agencies and physicians are absolute requirements for the success of any attempt to develop and clinically apply a new biological therapy or an innovative device involving the collective use of biomaterials, cells and/or bioactive molecules. “Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology” aspires to be a forum for all people involved in the process by bridging the gap too often existing between a discovery in the basic sciences and its clinical application.