Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40552166›Full record

ReviewApplied biosafety : journal of the American Biological Safety Association2025

Balancing Innovation and Safety: Frameworks and Considerations for the Governance of Dual-Use Research of Concern and Potential Pandemic Pathogens.

David R Gillum

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Rethinking governance of synthetic cells.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Understanding biosafety practitioner perspectives.Politics and the life sciences : the journal of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

1 author.

David R GillumSchool for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7732-1871

Funding

SOS:BIO - Assessing U.S. Biosafety and Biosecurity Compliance for Potential Pandemic Pathogen Research and Dual Use Research of ConcernR01GM155913 · NIGMS · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI David Gillum, Kathleen Vogel · 2024 to 2026
$823k
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM155913
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Governance of high-risk biological research, specifically dual-use research of concern (DURC) and pathogens with enhanced pandemic potential (PEPP), is a topic of renewed interest. This study considers the historical evolution of biosecurity policies, highlighting current challenges in balancing scientific progress with national security and public safety. Methods: A historical analysis and a literature review were conducted, examining significant events and policy developments shaping biosafety and biosecurity in the United States. The study also reviews possible frameworks for governing DURC and PEPP, assessing ethical, political, and regulatory perspectives from relevant literature. Results: Findings indicate that biosafety and biosecurity policies have historically been reactionary, responding to specific incidents rather than proactively managing risks. Despite significant policy efforts, gaps in transparency, oversight, and international collaboration persist, raising concerns about the effectiveness of governance structures. However, looking at past frameworks for managing high-risk biotechnological risks may be beneficial in establishing future governance strategies. Discussion: The study suggests the need for a balanced approach that integrates ethical, social, legal, and other considerations to ensure robust oversight of DURC and PEPP. Continuous policy evolution, informed by empirical evidence and interdisciplinary collaboration, is needed for mitigating risks associated with high-stakes biological research. Conclusion: Effective governance of DURC and PEPP requires comprehensive, interdisciplinary approaches that incorporate historical lessons, ethical considerations, and adaptive policymaking. Collaboration between policymakers, scientists, biosafety and biosecurity professionals, as well as members of the public, is required to ensure scientific innovation benefits national security and public health while minimizing risks.

Indexed as

bioethicsbiosafetybiosecuritydual-use researchDURCgovernancepathogens with enhanced pandemic potentialPEPP

Identifiers

PMID40552166
PMCPMC12183502

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.