ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2014
Pathogen security-help or hindrance?
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The development and use of decision support framework for informing selection of select agent toxins with modelling studies to inform permissible toxin amounts.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Pooled it
- The Re-Emergence of Mpox: Old Illness, Modern Challenges.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Application of multi-criteria decision analysis techniques and decision support framework for informing select agent designation for agricultural animal pathogens.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Anthrax revisited: how assessing the unpredictable can improve biosecurity.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Application of multi-criteria decision analysis techniques and decision support framework for informing plant select agent designation and decision making.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Techniques for Informing Select Agent Designation and Decision Making.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- A putative exosporium lipoprotein GBAA0190 of Bacillus anthracis as a potential anthrax vaccine candidate.BMC immunology · 2021Article
- What We Need to Consider During and After the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.Vector borne and zoonotic diseases (Larchmont, N.Y.) · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- The Poly-γ-d-Glutamic Acid Capsule Surrogate of the Bacillus anthracis Capsule Is a Novel Toll-Like Receptor 2 Agonist.Infection and immunity · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Events over the past 15 years have resulted in the promulgation of regulations in the United States to enhance biosecurity by restricting the access to pathogens and toxins (i.e., biological select agents and toxins [BSATs]), which pose a severe threat to human being, animal, or plant health or to animal or plant products, to qualified institutions, laboratories, and scientists. These regulations also reduce biosafety concerns by imposing specific requirements on laboratories working with BSATs. Furthermore, they provide a legal framework for prosecuting someone who possesses a BSAT illegally. With the implementation of these regulations has come discussion in the scientific community about the potential of these regulations to affect the cost of doing BSAT research, hamper research and international collaborations, or whether it would stop someone with a microbiological background from isolating many of the select agents from nature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.