Assessing and Managing the Risks of Potential Pandemic Pathogen Research

Development and implementation of evidence-based laboratory safety management tools for a public health laboratory

We developed an evidence-based continuous quality improvement (CQI) cycle for laboratory safety as a method of utilizing survey data to improve safety in a public health laboratory setting. • Expert Opinion: The CQI cycle begins with the solicitation of laboratory staff input via an annual survey addressing potential chemical, physical and radiological hazards associated with multiple laboratory activities. The survey collects frequency, severity and exposure data related to these activities in the context of the most pathogenic organisms handled at least weekly. • Gap Analysis: Step 2 of the CQI cycle used survey data to identify areas needing improvement. Typically, the traditional two-dimensional risk assessment matrix is used to prioritize mitigations. However, we added an additional dimension - frequency of exposure - to create three-dimensional risk maps to better inform and communicate risk priorities. • Mitigation Measures: Step 3 of the CQI cycle was to use these results to develop mitigations. This included evaluating the identified risks to determine what risk control measures (elimination, substitution, engineering, administrative or PPE) were needed. In the 2016 iteration of the CQI cycle described here, all mitigations were based on administrative controls. • Evaluation and Feedback: The last step of the CQI cycle was to evaluate the inferred effects of interventions through subsequent surveys, allowing for qualitative assessment of intervention effectiveness while simultaneously restarting the cycle by identifying new hazards. Here we describe the tools used to drive this CQI cycle, including the survey tool, risk analysis method, design of interventions and inference of mitigation effectiveness.

Gain-of-Function Research: Ethical Analysis

Gain-of-function (GOF) research involves experimentation that aims or is expected to (and/or, perhaps, actually does) increase the transmissibility and/or virulence of pathogens. Such research, when conducted by responsible scientists, usually aims to improve understanding of disease causing agents, their interaction with human hosts, and/or their potential to cause pandemics. The ultimate objective of such research is to better inform public health and preparedness efforts and/or development of medical countermeasures. Despite these important potential benefits, GOF research (GOFR) can pose risks regarding biosecurity and biosafety. In 2014 the administration of US President Barack Obama called for a "pause" on funding (and relevant research with existing US Government funding) of GOF experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses in particular. With announcement of this pause, the US Government launched a "deliberative process" regarding risks and benefits of GOFR to inform future funding decisions-and the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) was tasked with making recommendations to the US Government on this matter. As part of this deliberative process the National Institutes of Health commissioned this Ethical Analysis White Paper, requesting that it provide (1) review and summary of ethical literature on GOFR, (2) identification and analysis of existing ethical and decision-making frameworks relevant to (i) the evaluation of risks and benefits of GOFR, (ii) decision-making about the conduct of GOF studies, and (iii) the development of US policy regarding GOFR (especially with respect to funding of GOFR), and (3) development of an ethical and decision-making framework that may be considered by NSABB when analyzing information provided by GOFR risk-benefit assessment, and when crafting its final recommendations (especially regarding policy decisions about funding of GOFR in particular). The ethical and decision-making framework ultimately developed is based on the idea that there are numerous ethically relevant dimensions upon which any given case of GOFR can fare better or worse (as opposed to there being necessary conditions that are either satisfied or not satisfied, where all must be satisfied in order for a given case of GOFR to be considered ethically acceptable): research imperative, proportionality, minimization of risks, manageability of risks, justice, good governance (i.e., democracy), evidence, and international outlook and engagement. Rather than drawing a sharp bright line between GOFR studies that are ethically acceptable and those that are ethically unacceptable, this framework is designed to indicate where any given study would fall on an ethical spectrum-where imaginable cases of GOFR might range from those that are most ethically acceptable (perhaps even ethically praiseworthy or ethically obligatory), at one end of the spectrum, to those that are most ethically problematic or unacceptable (and thus should not be funded, or conducted), at the other. The aim should be that any GOFR pursued (and/or funded) should be as far as possible towards the former end of the spectrum.