Rapid Proliferation of Pandemic Research: Implications for Dual-Use Risks

A systematic approach to microbial forensics

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic accelerated developments in biotechnology that underpin infection science. These advances present an opportunity to refresh the microbial forensic toolkit. Integration of novel analytical techniques with established forensic methods will speed up acquisition of evidence and better support lines of enquiry. A critical part of any such investigation is demonstration of a robust causal relationship and attribution of responsibility for an incident. In the wider context of a formal investigation into agency, motivation and intent, the quick and efficient assembly of microbiological evidence sets the tone and tempo of the entire investigation. Integration of established and novel analytical techniques from infection science into a systematic approach to microbial forensics will therefore ensure that major perspectives are correctly used to frame and shape the evidence into a clear narrative, while recognizing that forensic hypothesis generation, testing and refinement comprise an iterative process. Development of multidisciplinary training exercises that use this approach will enable translation into practice and efficient implementation when the need arises.

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle.

METHODS

A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022).

RESULTS

379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities).

CONCLUSIONS

Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.

Gain-of-function research

The term Gain-of-Function (GoF) describes the gain of new functions by organisms through genetic changes, which can naturally occur or by experimental genetic modifications. Gain-of-Function research on viruses is enhancing transmissibility, virus replication, virulence, host range, immune evasion or drug and vaccine resistance to get insights into the viral mechanisms, to create and analyze animal models, to accelerate drug and vaccine development and to improve pandemic preparedness. A subset is the GoF research of concern (GOFROC) on enhanced potentially pandemic pathogens (ePPPs) that could be harmful for humans. A related issue is the military use of research as dual-use research of concern (DURC). Influenza and coronaviruses are main research targets, because they cause pandemics by airborne infections. Two studies on avian influenza viruses initiated a global debate and a temporary GoF pause in the United States which ended with a new regulatory framework in 2017. In the European Union and China, GoF and DURC are mainly covered by the legislation for laboratory safety and genetically modified organisms. After the coronavirus outbreaks, the GoF research made significant advances, including analyses of modified MERS-like and SARS-like viruses and the creation of synthetic SARS-CoV-2 viruses as a platform to generate mutations. The GoF research on viruses will still play an important role in future, but the need to clarify the differences and overlaps between GoF research, GOFROC and DURC and the need for specialized oversight authorities are still debated.

Biosecurity in an age of open science

The risk of accidental or deliberate misuse of biological research is increasing as biotechnology advances. As open science becomes widespread, we must consider its impact on those risks and develop solutions that ensure security while facilitating scientific progress. Here, we examine the interaction between open science practices and biosecurity and biosafety to identify risks and opportunities for risk mitigation. Increasing the availability of computational tools, datasets, and protocols could increase risks from research with misuse potential. For instance, in the context of viral engineering, open code, data, and materials may increase the risk of release of enhanced pathogens. For this dangerous subset of research, both open science and biosecurity goals may be achieved by using access-controlled repositories or application programming interfaces. While preprints accelerate dissemination of findings, their increased use could challenge strategies for risk mitigation at the publication stage. This highlights the importance of oversight earlier in the research lifecycle. Preregistration of research, a practice promoted by the open science community, provides an opportunity for achieving biosecurity risk assessment at the conception of research. Open science and biosecurity experts have an important role to play in enabling responsible research with maximal societal benefit.

Establishing an incentive-based multi-stakeholder approach to Dual Use DNA screening

Fast, accessible, and high-quality DNA is fundamental to advancement in the life sciences that will drive forward fields like agriculture, energy, and medicine. Despite their importance in accelerating global progress, bioscience research and biotechnologies can also be misused, endangering humans, animals, and the environment. The ability to accidentally or deliberately endow or enhance pathogenicity of biological systems is of particular concern. Access to DNA sequences with a clear potential for Dual Use should be limited to responsible and identifiable groups with legitimate uses. Yet, none of the 195 countries party to the International Health Regulations have national laws that mandate this type of screening. Many DNA providers voluntarily screen orders and absorb increased costs, but this practice is not universally adopted for a variety of reasons. This article explores the incentives and regulatory structures that can bring the screening coverage of DNA orders towards 100%, which may include: expedited orders for approved customers, better tools and technology for more efficient screening, funding requirements that grantees use screened DNA, and early education in biosecurity aimed at researchers and students. Ultimately, an incentive-based multi-stakeholder approach to DNA screening can benefit researchers, industry, and global health security.

Making Security Viral: Shifting Engineering Biology Culture and Publishing

The ability to construct, synthesize, and edit genes and genomes at scale and with speed enables, in synergy with other tools of engineering biology, breakthrough applications with far-reaching implications for society. As SARS-CoV-2 spread around the world in early spring of 2020, researchers rapidly mobilized, using these tools in the development of diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines for COVID-19. The sharing of knowledge was crucial to making rapid progress. Several publications described the use of reverse genetics for the de novo construction of SARS-CoV-2 in the laboratory, one in the form of a protocol. Given the demonstrable harm caused by the virus, the unequal distribution of mitigating vaccines and therapeutics, their unknown efficacy against variants, and the interest in this research by laboratories unaccustomed to working with highly transmissible pandemic pathogens, there are risks associated with such publications, particularly as protocols. We describe considerations and offer suggestions for enhancing security in the publication of synthetic biology research and techniques. We recommend: (1) that protocol manuscripts for the de novo synthesis of certain pathogenic viruses undergo a mandatory safety and security review; (2) that if published, such papers include descriptions of the discussions or review processes that occurred regarding security considerations in the main text; and (3) the development of a governance framework for the inclusion of basic security screening during the publication process of engineering biology/synthetic biology manuscripts to build and support a safe and secure research enterprise that is able to maximize its positive impacts and minimize any negative outcomes.