Strengthening biological security after COVID-19: Using cartoons for engaging life science stakeholders with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).

The devastating effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have acutely shown the need for maintaining robust international and national systems for biological security and ensuring that life sciences are used only for peaceful purposes. Life science stakeholders can play an important role in safeguarding scientific and technological advances in biology and related fields against accidental or deliberate misuse, not least because they are on the frontlines of driving innovation. In this paper, we argue that enhancing awareness and understanding of the risk of deliberate disease is essential for effective biological security. We first discuss the issue of 'dual use' in science and technology as it relates to disarmament and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Second, we review how scientist engagement with dual-use risks has been addressed in the context of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). Third, we report on the development of an innovative awareness-raising tool, a cartoon series, that can be used for engaging life science stakeholders with BTWC issues. Finally, we outline a set of practical considerations for promoting sustainable life science engagement with the BTWC.

The vital importance of a web of prevention for effective biosafety and biosecurity in the twenty-first century.

Biological threats are complex and multifaceted, as evidenced by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Their effective prevention and countering require multiple lines of collaborative action and sustained cross-sectorial coordination. This paper reviews the conclusions of Graham Pearson's 1997 JAMA article titled 'The Complementary Role of Environmental and Security Biological Control Regimes in the 21st Century', taking into account the international policy developments that have occurred over the past two decades. The paper underscores the utility of the concept of a 'web of prevention' for elucidating the need for continuous interaction between the international biosafety and international biosecurity regimes, in order to ensure that the life sciences are used only for peaceful purposes. The terms 'biosafety' and 'biosecurity' are used to denote the primary purpose of the two regimes: the international biosafety regime seeks to prevent the unintentional (accidental) release of pathogens and toxins, including naturally occurring disease, whereas the biosecurity regime seeks to prevent the deliberate release and misuse of pathogens and toxins. The paper concludes by recommending practical steps for strengthening the implementation of all elements of the web of prevention and upholding the norms against the hostile misuse of life sciences.

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.

Microorganisms: Good or Evil, MIRRI Provides Biosecurity Awareness.

The life-science community is a key stakeholder in the effort to ensure that the advances in biotechnology are not misused. Unfortunately, to date, the engagement of life scientists with issues of biosecurity has been limited. Microorganisms have been harnessed for the benefit of humankind but in the wrong hands could be used in direct or indirect acts against humans, livestock, crops, food, water infrastructure and other economically valuable entities. The Microbial Resources Research Infrastructure in its preparatory phase has addressed the topic implementing a code of conduct as part of its programme of prevention of malicious use and continues to work with the international community to raise awareness of best practice to avoid misuse of microorganisms. Biosecurity has become a major concern for several countries creating numerous activities to put in place counter measures, risk assessment, legislation and emergency response. The goal is to implement measures to protect us against malicious use of microorganisms, their products, information and technology transfer. Through this paper, we wish to discuss some of the activities that are underway, mention key educational tools and provide scientists with information on addressing biosecurity issues.

The Creation of a Contagious H5N1 Influenza Virus: Implications for the Education of Life Scientists.

The paper contends that the ongoing controversy surrounding the creation of a contagious H5N1 influenza virus has already exposed the severe limitations of the possibility of preventing the hostile misuse of the life sciences by dint of oversight of proposals and publications. It further argues that in order to prevent the potential wholesale militarisation of the life sciences, it is essential that life scientists become aware of their responsibilities within the context of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) and actively contribute their expertise to strengthening the biological weapons non-proliferation regime .

Towards the responsible conduct of scientific research: is ethics education enough?

Much of the discourse on 'beyond the laboratory door' biosecurity to date has focused on the need to raise awareness among the scientific community of the risks posed by the rapid advancement of biotechnology in recent decades. While education is undoubtedly important, a growing body of evidence suggests that ethics education does not necessarily translate into ethical behaviour. This trend has already been reported in clinical settings, where research has highlighted doctors' own reports of ethically dubious practices and challenges when confronted with moral dilemmas in their everyday work. The purpose of this paper is to critically evaluate the practical value of ethics education and show why it is an essential, although insufficient, measure for promoting a culture of responsible conduct of research. We conclude by highlighting the importance of continuing professional development as a way of maintaining life scientists' engagement with biosecurity issues and supporting them in active roles in the effective implementation of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC).