Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39144100›Full record

ArticleApplied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association2024

Screening State of Play: The Biosecurity Practices of Synthetic DNA Providers.

Arianne Kane, Michael T Parker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The evolution of the United States nucleic acid screening policies.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  2. Rethinking governance of synthetic cells.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Why implementation gaps could undermine synthetic nucleic acid oversight.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  7. 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

2 authors.

Arianne KaneDepartment of Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1080-3399
Michael T ParkerCollege of Arts & Sciences, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Synthetic DNA technology is rapidly emerging as a key driver of innovation in the fields of medicine, biotechnology, and more. But it also poses significant risk, particularly in lowering barriers to the production of dangerous pathogens and toxins. At present, oversight of this technology is voluntarily coordinated among synthetic DNA providers and stakeholders, and detailed understanding of security processes, infrastructures, and insights from these providers is imperative to understand how to best mitigate the inherent risks of this technology. Objectives: In this study, we aimed to determine the trends, outliers, strengths, and gaps in current DNA provider security practices through a broad survey of the gene synthesis field. Methods: We interviewed synthetic DNA providers and stakeholders about their customer and sequence screening procedures. Respondents were divided into groups based on membership in the International Gene Synthesis Consortium, nationality, whether they were a new or established company, and whether they synthesize de novo DNA or not. We then performed meta-analysis and intergroup analysis to elucidate larger trends and points of variance. Results: In total, we interviewed 18 companies. We found that synthetic DNA providers and stakeholders tend to operate under a "zero-trust model" for screenings and utilize common governmental and private resources to navigate international import/export policies. Major variabilities were identified in the sensitivity of screening, monitoring and evaluation practices, screening pipelines, and approaches to synthetic oligonucleotide screening. In addition, we identified a significant vulnerability of lacking awareness among providers of formal law enforcement reporting procedures. Conclusion: Collectively, we observed significant heterogeneity in security practice throughout the field, reflective of the current lack of codified oversight for DNA synthesis. The results presented in this study provide insight into the specifics, strengths, and shortcomings of current DNA provider security practices, and are important considerations for the biosecurity community in ongoing deliberations of if, when, and how to approach oversight of synthetic DNA technology.

Indexed as

biosecurityregulationscreeningsynthetic biologysynthetic DNA

Identifiers

PMID39144100
PMCPMC11319849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.