Strengthen oversight of risky research on pathogens

A sustainable balance between innovation and risk: How the "right to science" affects China's medical biotechnology regulatory policy

Medical biotechnology is at the forefront of scientific progress, with humanity facing a critical juncture during the pandemic. However, to maximize these benefits, governments face the complex challenge of reconciling innovation and risk. A sustainable balance is critical, as extreme measures such as blanket bans on biotechnology research could hamper progress, while unfettered research could pose an existential threat. The need for effective regulation has become apparent in the context of recent controversies surrounding pharmaceutical biotechnology. Governments face the challenge of reconciling precaution with innovation, necessitating a dual strategy fostering both principles. This paper explores the delicate dynamics of innovation and risk in pharmaceutical biotechnology, focusing on the evolving landscape in Europe, the U.S., and, notably, China. At the same time, we delve into the regulatory landscape and examine the role of the "right to science" in shaping Chinese policy. This paper further applies the right to science that has received the interests of medical biotechnology regulatory policymakers: understanding the role of scientific claims in regulating emerging technologies and analyzing the impact of major regulations on the ability to sustainably balance innovation and risk. We believe that a comprehensive global effort is needed to harmonize these two principles, highlighting the imperative of responsible governance in steering the trajectory of this powerful scientific frontier. The insights gained from the Chinese experience offer valuable implications for global policymakers facing similar challenges.

Dual-use research and research using enhanced pathogens in high-income countries: whose business?

U.S. regulation of dual-use research of concern and of research with enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential may alter soon. Much has been written on the best form for that regulation to take. Less was written on a procedural question: whose voices should shape that regulation? This commentary addresses the latter, the procedural question, regarding the appropriate parties to the deliberations and decisions on this matter. It proposes to U.S. virologists that it would be in the interests of their discipline and only appropriate if that regulation were shaped by many voices from outside the discipline and from outside the United States.

Limiting open science? Three approaches to bottom-up governance of dual-use research of concern

Governing dual-use research of concern (DURC) in the life sciences has become difficult owing to the diversification of scientific domains, digitalization of potential threats, and the proliferation of actors. This paper proposes three approaches to realize bottom-up governance of DURC from laboratory operation to institutional decision-making levels. First, a technological approach can predict and monitor the dual-use nature of the research target pathogens and their information. Second, an interactive approach is proposed in which diverse stakeholders proactively discuss and examine dual-use issues through research practice. Third, a personnel approach can identify the right persons involved in DURC. These approaches suggest that, going beyond self-governance by researchers, collaborative and networked governance involving diverse actors should become essential. This mode of governance can also be seen in light of the management of research use. Therefore, program design by funding agencies and publication screening by journal publishers continuously contribute to governance at the meso-level. Bottom-up governance may be realized by using an appropriately integrated design of these three approaches at the micro-level, such as dual-use prediction and monitoring, stakeholder dialogue, and background checks. Given that the term 'open science' has been promoted to the research community as part of top-down governance, paying due attention on site to research subjects, research practices, and persons involved in research will provide an opportunity to develop a more socially conscious open science.

Future pandemics and the urge to 'do something'

Research with enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (ePPP) makes pathogens substantially more lethal, communicable, immunosuppressive or otherwise capable of triggering a pandemic. We briefly relay an existing argument that the benefits of ePPP research do not outweigh its risks and then consider why proponents of these arguments continue to confidently endorse them. We argue that these endorsements may well be the product of common cognitive biases-in which case they would provide no challenge to the argument against ePPP research. If the case against ePPP research is strong, the views of professional experts do little to move the needle in favour of ePPP research.