The Culture of Biosafety, Biosecurity, and Responsible Conduct in the Life Sciences: A Comprehensive Literature Review

Ethical decision-making and role conflict in managing a scientific laboratory

Scientists who manage research laboratories often face ethical dilemmas related to conflicts between their different roles, such as researcher, mentor, entrepreneur, and manager. It is not known how often uncertainty about conflicting role obligations leads scientists to engage in unethical conduct, but this probably occurs more often than many people would like to think. In this paper, we reflect on ethical decision-making in scientific laboratory management with special attention to how different roles create conflicting obligations and expectations that may produce moral uncertainty and lead to violations of research norms, especially when combined with self-interest and other factors that increase the risk of misbehavior. We also offer some suggestions and guidance for investigators and research institutions.

Biosafety, biosecurity, and bioethics

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of biosafety in the biomedical sciences. While it is often assumed that biosafety is a purely technical matter that has little to do with philosophy or the humanities, biosafety raises important ethical issues that have not been adequately examined in the scientific or bioethics literature. This article reviews some pivotal events in the history of biosafety and biosecurity and explores three different biosafety topics that generate significant ethical concerns, i.e., risk assessment, risk management, and risk distribution. The article also discusses the role of democratic governance in the oversight of biosafety and offers some suggestions for incorporating bioethics into biosafety practice, education, and policy.

Biological Containment for African Swine Fever (ASF) Laboratories and Animal Facilities: The Italian Challenge in Bridging the Present Regulatory Gap and Enhancing Biosafety and Biosecurity Measures

The African Swine Fever Virus (ASFV) is a DNA virus of the Asfarviridae family, Asfivirus genus. It is responsible for massive losses in pig populations and drastic direct and indirect economic impacts. The ever-growing handling of ASFV pathological material in laboratories, necessary for either diagnostic or research activities, requires particular attention to avoid accidental virus release from laboratories and its detrimental economic and environmental effects. Recently, the Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/689 of 17 December 2019 repealed the Commission Decision of 26 May 2003 reporting an ASF diagnostic manual (2003/422/EC) with the minimum and supplementary requirements for ASF laboratories. This decision generated a regulatory gap that has not been addressed yet. This paper aims to describe the Italian National Reference Laboratory (NRL) efforts to develop an effective and reliable biological containment tool for ASF laboratories and animal facilities. The tool consists of comprehensive and harmonized structural and procedural requirements for ASF laboratories and animal facilities that have been developed based on both current and repealed legislation, further entailing a risk assessment and internal audit as indispensable tools to design, adjust, and improve biological containment measures.

The Need for Biosecurity Education in Biotechnology Curricula

The growth of biotechnology in recent decades and the dual-use nature of most bioscience research are making their misuse, or accidental misuse or release, more likely and present as threats to biosecurity. A proactive approach is through educating the next generation of scientists to be more security conscious. However, current educational and professional programs in biosecurity are lacking. In this perspective, we recommend that biosecurity educational opportunities should be implemented and expanded for undergraduate and graduate students who will likely use one or more methods in the field of biotechnology. We then propose that biosecurity education is a key factor in a path toward sustainable and safe research. Finally, a set of 17 biosecurity competencies organized into 6 distinct themes is outlined.

Motivating Proactive Biorisk Management

Scholars and practitioners of biosafety and biosecurity (collectively, biorisk management or BRM) have argued that life scientists should play a more proactive role in monitoring their work for potential risks, mitigating harm, and seeking help as necessary. However, most efforts to promote proactive BRM have focused on training life scientists in technical skills and have largely ignored the extent to which life scientists wish to use them (ie, their motivation). In this article, we argue that efforts to promote proactive BRM would benefit from a greater focus on life scientists' motivation. We review relevant literature on life scientists' motivation to practice BRM, offer examples of successful interventions from adjacent fields, and outline ideas for possible interventions to promote proactive BRM, along with strategies for iterative development, testing, and scaling.

Biorisk Management for SARS-CoV-2 Research in a Biosafety Level-3 Core Facility

The emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) presents hazards to researchers and other laboratory personnel in research settings where the live virus is stored and handled. The Biosafety Level-3 (BSL-3) Core Facility (CF) at Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine in National University of Singapore (NUS Medicine) has implemented a biorisk management (BRM) system to ensure that biorisk to employees, the public, or the environment are consistently minimized to an acceptable level while working with SARS-CoV-2. This chapter summarizes how a BRM system can be implemented in academic institutions based on international standards in the context of existing local legislations/regulations and institutional policies/guidelines to minimize the risk of laboratory-acquired infections and deliberate misuse of the newly emerged virus, SARS-CoV-2 in BSL-3 laboratories. The BRM programs prioritize performing risk assessments prior to implementation of work processes and reassessing the risk portfolio of the facilities from time to time, determining root causes and prevention of recurrences. Focusing on awareness-raising and educating the laboratory users in biosafety and biosecurity, and identifying opportunities for improvement are the other key factors for a sustainable and successful BRM system in the NUS Medicine BSL-3 CF.

Building and implementing a multi-level system of ethical code for biologists under the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) of the United Nations

The recent global COVID-19 pandemic has had profound economic and social impacts on the world. It has highlighted an urgent need to strengthen existing international biosecurity governance mechanisms to prevent the misuse and malicious abuse of life science research and maintain international biological arms control norms. Biologists are at the front line of biotechnology development and are key to maintaining biosecurity awareness and moral self-discipline. As an important first step, biologists need to actively participate in the formulation and implementation of relevant biosecurity policies and measures to ensure their effectiveness and sustainability. Furthermore, efforts should be made to advocate for and promote the establishment of an ethical code of conduct for biologists to share safety responsibilities for global biosecurity. To maximize the impact of this ethical code of conduct, an effective approach to implementing codes of conduct for biologists at both national and international levels should be established under the framework of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC).

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

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the world's vulnerability to biological catastrophe and elicited unprecedented scientific efforts. Some of this work and its derivatives, however, present dual-use risks (i.e., potential harm from misapplication of beneficial research) that have largely gone unaddressed. For instance, gain-of-function studies and reverse genetics protocols may facilitate the engineering of concerning SARS-CoV-2 variants and other pathogens. The risk of accidental or deliberate release of dangerous pathogens may be increased by large-scale collection and characterization of zoonotic viruses undertaken in an effort to understand what enables animal-to-human transmission. These concerns are exacerbated by the rise of preprint publishing that circumvents a late-stage opportunity for dual-use oversight. To prevent the next global health emergency, we must avoid inadvertently increasing the threat of future biological events. This requires a nuanced and proactive approach to dual-use evaluation throughout the research life cycle, including the conception, funding, conduct, and dissemination of research.

South-to-south mentoring as a vehicle for implementing sustainable health security in Africa

BACKGROUND

While sustainability has become a universal precept in the development of global health security systems, supporting policies often lack mechanisms to drive policies into regular practice. 'On-paper' norms and regulations are to a great extent upheld by frontline workers who often lack the opportunity to communicate their first-hand experiences to decisionmakers; their role is an often overlooked, yet crucial, aspect of a sustainable global health security landscape. Initiatives and programs developing transdisciplinary professional skills support the increased bidirectional dialogue between these frontline workers and key policy- and decisionmakers which may sustainably narrow the gap between global health security policy design and implementation.

METHODS

The International Federation of Biosafety Associations' (IFBA) Global Mentorship Program recruits biosafety and biosecurity champions across Africa to provide local peer mentorship to developing professionals in their geographic region. Mentors and mentees complete structured one year program cycles, where they are provided with written overviews of monthly discussion topics, and attend optional virtual interactive activities. Feedback from African participants of the 2019-2020 program cycle was collected using a virtual Exit Survey, where aspects of program impact and structure were assessed.

RESULTS

Following its initial call for applications, the IFBA Global Mentorship Program received considerable interest from professionals across the African continent, particularly in East and North Africa. The pilot program cycle matched a total of 62 individuals from an array of professional disciplines across several regions, 40 of which were located on the African continent. The resulting mentorship pairs shared knowledge, skills, and experiences towards translating policy objectives to action on the front lines. Mentorship pairs embraced multidisciplinary approaches to harmonize health security strategies across the human and animal health sectors. South-to-South mentorship therefore provided mentees with locally relevant support critical to translation of best technical practices to local capacity and work.

CONCLUSION

The IFBA's South-to-South Global Mentorship Program has demonstrated its ability to form crucial links between frontline biosafety professionals, laboratory workers, and policy- and decision-makers across several implicated sectors. By supporting regionally relevant peer mentorship programs, the gap between health security policy development and implementation may be narrowed.