ArticleApplied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association2025
Virologist Opinions: An Important Component for the Governance of the Convergence of Artificial Intelligence and Dual-Use Research of Concern.
Article in Applied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and the life sciences has brought in silico research into policy conversations around dual-use research of concern and pathogens with enhanced pandemic potential research. This study considers the expert opinions of virologists on governance of AI and life sciences research. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with virologists were conducted and qualitatively analyzed to explore expert opinions about AI and virology. Interviewees were asked about the risks and benefits of AI, policy development considerations, and about evaluating the capability of AI tools in the field of virology. Results: Interviewed virologists generally expressed similar sentiments in responses to questions, including that benefits and risks of AI use in virology research are still to come, that policy and governance should be a process that includes virologist input, and that it is challenging to predict the capability of AI tools without experimental wet-lab validation. Discussion: Governance should be informed by expert opinions of practitioners, and it is important to consider how such opinions are incorporated. Expert opinions are valuable in understanding the impact of governance measures on beneficial research and development, and ensuring that governance measures are practicable and applicable. Virologists interviewed generally had similar opinions around AI and virology topics and often expressed an expectation that their opinions would develop over time. Conclusion: Given the uncertainty around the capability of AI technologies in the life sciences, it may be better to focus on developing frameworks for how governance measures will be developed, and to monitor developments, than to focus on specific interventions.
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.