ArticlemSphere2025
A possible turning point for research governance in the life sciences.
Article in mSphere, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Discerning dangerous gain of function: most gain of function (GoF) research does not involve infectious microbes.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Automated Laboratory Security Tiers: a framework for evaluating and mitigating biosecurity risks from latent capabilities.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Improving governance in the age of synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, and diverging threats.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Review
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
Abstract
On 5 May 2025, the White House issued Executive Order (EO) 14292, halting federally funded "dangerous gain-of-function" research and rescinding the 2024 Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential (PEPP) policy. While intended to strengthen biosafety and biosecurity, the EO introduces vague definitions, an abrupt 120-day policy development deadline, and politically charged rhetoric that could undermine trust and buy-in. Researchers, biosafety professionals, and institutions are left with a biosecurity policy vacuum after this EO, which is creating uncertainty across the scientific enterprise. This perspective considers the EO's implications through empirical findings and practitioner insight and argues for a tiered, adaptive risk governance model grounded in scientific rigor, operational clarity, and institutional expertise to navigate future biosecurity challenges.
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.