Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36633603›Full record

ReviewHealth security

Motivating Proactive Biorisk Management.

Daniel Greene, Megan J Palmer, David A Relman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Health security. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Unmet Expectations: Life Scientists' Views on Biorisk and Responsibility.Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daniel GreeneDaniel Greene, PhD, is a Senior Analyst, Biosafety, Biosecurity & Emerging Technologies, Gryphon Scientific, Takoma Park, MD. Daniel Greene is also a Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation; Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Megan J PalmerMegan J. Palmer, PhD, is Executive Director, Bio Policy & Leadership Initiatives, and an Adjunct Professor, Department of Bioengineering; Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
David A RelmanDavid A. Relman, MD, is a Senior Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation; Stanford University, Stanford, CA. David A. Relman is also the Thomas C. and Joan M. Merigan Professor, Departments of Medicine, and of Microbiology and Immunology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Containment of BiohazardsMotivationHumansBioethicsBiorisk managementBiosafetyBiosecurityDual-use sciencePsychological impacts

Identifiers

PMID36633603
PMCPMC9940813

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.