ArticlemSphere2026
Ethical criteria for self-identifying societal risk associated with dangerous gain-of-function research.
Article in mSphere, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 5 May 2025 executive order (EO) "Improving the safety and security of biological research" established a federal funding pause for dangerous gain-of-function (DGoF) research, defined as seeking certain experimental outcomes and deemed capable of resulting in significant societal consequences. These moves place institutional biosafety committees central in the identification and self-reporting of DGoF. The previous federal review for research anticipated to result in enhanced potential pandemic pathogens involved a multidisciplinary board, including a bioethicist. From our experience on those boards and based on the EO's mandate to assess the significance of the societal consequences that might result from proposed DGoF research, we suggest a layered review process for the assessment of societal consequences to inform implementation of the EO. In the layered review, proposed research, initially identified based on anticipated experimental outcomes, is confirmed as DGoF through an assessment that is informed by ethical frameworks.
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.