ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2025
Mapping variation in dual use risk assessments of synthetic biology projects.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Censoring chemical data to mitigate dual use risk.Digital discovery · 2026Article
- Dual-use artificial intelligence and biology: upstream risk-benefit reviews.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: When a life science project is identified as potential dual use research of concern (DURC), United States government policy and biorisk management professionals recommend conducting a risk assessment of the project and using its results to choose strategies to manage any associated risks. However, there is little empirical research on how real-world projects score on DURC assessments, the extent to which reviewers agree or disagree about risks for a given project, or how risk judgments map to recommended risk management strategies. By studying the process of DURC risk assessment, it may be possible to develop methods that are more consistent, accurate, and cost-effective. Methods: Using a modified version of the framework in the Companion Guide to the United States Government Policies for Oversight of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern, we elicited detailed reviews from 18 experienced DURC reviewers and 49 synthetic biology students of the risks, benefits, and recommended risk management strategies for four real-world synthetic biology projects. Results: We found significant variation among experts, as well as between experts and students, in both perceived DURC risk and recommended risk management strategies. For some projects, expert risk assessments spanned 4 out of 5 possible ratings. We found substantial disagreement between participants about the appropriate actions to take to manage the DURC risks of each project. Discussion: The observed variation in participants' judgments suggests that decisions for similar projects may vary significantly across institutions, exposing the public to inconsistent standards of risk management. We provide several research-based suggestions to reduce reviewer disagreement and manage risk more efficiently when reviewers disagree.
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.