Limiting open science? Three approaches to bottom-up governance of dual-use research of concern

References

• Ienca M, Vayena E. Dual use in the 21st century: emerging risks and global governance. Swiss Med Wkly. 2018;148(4748):w14688. doi: 10.4414/smw.2018.14688
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Imperiale MJ, Casadevall A. Rethinking gain-of-function experiments in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. MBio. 2020;11(4):e01868–20. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01868-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pannu J, Palmer MJ, Cicero A, et al. Strengthen oversight of risky research on pathogens. Sci. 2022;378(6625):1170–1172. doi: 10.1126/science.adf6020
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millett PD. Gaps in the international governance of dual-use research of concern. 2017 January 17 [cited 2023 February 11]. Available from: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_176434.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McLeish C. Reflecting on the problem of dual use. In: Rappert B, and McLeish C, editors A web of prevention: biological weapons, life sciences and the governance of research. New York, NY: Earthscan; 2007. pp. 189–208.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton RA, Mampuys R, Galaitsi SE. Opportunities, challenges, and future considerations for top-down governance for biosecurity and synthetic biology. In: Trump B, Florin MV, Perkins E Linkov I, editors. Emerging threats of synthetic biology and biotechnology: addressing security and resilience issues. Springer Netherlands; 2021. pp. 37–58. doi: 10.1007/978-94-024-2086-9_3
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser J. U.S. scientists brace for tighten scrutiny of potentially risky research. Sci. 2023;379(6631):422–422. doi: 10.1126/science.adg9442
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Integrity and security in the global research ecosystem. In: OECD science, technology and industry policy papers, no. 130. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2022. doi: 10.1787/23074957
   Google Scholar
• White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Enhancing the security and integrity of America’s research enterprise. Washington, DC: White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; 2020. Available from: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Enhancing-the-Security-and-Integrity-of-Americas-Research-Enterprise.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Secretariat of Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, Cabinet Office. Policy for ensuring research integrity (overview). Tokyo, Japan: Secretariat of Science; 2021. Available from: https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/doc/policy_overview_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. A survey of attitudes and actions on dual use research in the life sciences: a collaborative effort of the National research council and the American association for the advancement of science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Swann T, World Health Organization. ’Anarchist technologies’: anarchism, cybernetics and mutual aid in community responses to the COVID-19 crisis. World Health Org. 2022;30(1):193–209. doi: 10.1177/13505084221090632
   Google Scholar
• Vinke S, Rais I, Millett P. The dual-use education gap: awareness and education of life science researchers on nonpathogen-related dual-use research. Health Secur. 2022;20(1):35–42. doi: 10.1089/hs.2021.0177
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans SW. When all research is dual use. Issues Sci Technol. 2022;38(3):84–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salloch S. The dual use of research ethics committees: why professional self-governance falls short in preserving biosecurity. BMC Med Ethics. 2018;19(1):53. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0295-0
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xue Y, Yu H, Qin G. Towards good governance on dual-use biotechnology for global sustainable development. Sustain. 2021;13(24):14056. doi: 10.3390/su132414056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Esvelt KM, Gemmell NJ. Conservation demands safe gene drive. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(11):e2003850. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sokurenko EV, Hasty DL, Dykhuizen DE. Pathoadaptive mutations: gene loss and variation in bacterial pathogens. Trends Microbiol. 1999;7(5):191–195. doi: 10.1016/S0966-842X(99)01493-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Riesselman AJ, Ingraham JB, Marks DS. Deep generative models of genetic variation capture the effects of mutations. Nat Methods. 2018;15(10):816–822. doi: 10.1038/s41592-018-0138-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins-Hooker A, Depardieu F, Baur S, et al. Generating functional protein variants with variational autoencoders. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17(2):e1008736. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008736
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature. 2021;596(7873):583–589. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godbold GD, Hewitt FC, Kappell AD, et al. Improved understanding of biorisk for research involving microbial modification using annotated sequences of concern. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2023;11:1124100. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1124100
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vennis IM, Schaap MM, Hogervorst PAM, et al. Dual-use quickscan: a web-based tool to assess the dual-use potential of life science research. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:797076. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.797076
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holub M, Agena E. Biofoundries and citizen science can accelerate disease surveillance and environmental monitoring. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:1110376. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.1110376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Gene Synthesis Consortium. Harmonized Screening Protocol V2.0. 2017 November 19. Available from: https://genesynthesisconsortium.org/wp-content/uploads/IGSCHarmonizedProtocol11-21-17.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Diggans J, Leproust E. Next steps for access to safe, secure DNA synthesis. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:86. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00086
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jessop-Fabre MM, Sonnenschein N. Improving reproducibility in synthetic biology. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2019;7:18. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2019.00018
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yachie N, Natsume T. Robotic biology consortium, Natsume T. Robotic crowd biology with Maholo LabDroids. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35(4):310–312. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3758
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brizee S, van Passel MWJ, van den Berg LM, et al. Development of a biosecurity checklist for laboratory assessment and monitoring. Appl Biosaf. 2019;24(2):83–89. doi: 10.1177/1535676019838077
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moritz RL, Berger KM, Owen BR, et al. Promoting biosecurity by professionalizing biosecurity. Science. 2020;367(6480):856–858. doi: 10.1126/science.aba0376
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fearnley L. Viral sovereignty or sequence etiquette? Asian science, open data, and knowledge control in global virus surveillance. East Asian Sci Technol Soc. 2020;14(3):479–505. doi: 10.1215/18752160-8698019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Noorden R. Scientists call for fully open sharing of coronavirus genome data. Nature. 2021;590(7845):195–196. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-00305-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elbe S. Bioinformational diplomacy: global health emergencies, data sharing and sequential life. Eur J Int Relat. 2021;27(3):657–681. doi: 10.1177/13540661211008204
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arita M. Open access and data sharing of nucleotide sequence data. Data Sci J. 2021;20(28):1–5. doi: 10.5334/dsj-2021-028
   Google Scholar
• Voisin C, Linden M, Dyke SOM, et al. GA4GH passport standard for digital identity and access permissions. Cell Genomics. 2021;1(2):100030. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xgen.2021.100030
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jasanoff S. Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science. Minerva. 2003;41(3):223–244. doi: 10.1023/A:1025557512320
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stilgoe J, Owen R, Macnaghten P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res Policy. 2013;42(9):1568–1580. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frahm N, Doezema T, Pfotenhauer S. Fixing technology with society: the coproduction of democratic deficits and responsible innovation at the OECD and the European commission. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2022;47(1):174–216. doi: 10.1177/0162243921999100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dubov A. The concept of governance in dual-use research. Med Health Care And Philos. 2014;17(3):447–457. doi: 10.1007/s11019-013-9542-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Getz LJ, Dellaire G. Angels and devils: dilemmas in dual-use biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 2018;36(12):1202–1205. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.07.016
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulnicane I, Mahfoud T, Salles A. Experimentation, learning, and dialogue: an RRI-inspired approach to dual-use of concern. J Respons Innov. 2023;10(1). doi: 10.1080/23299460.2022.2094071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitford CM, Lübke NC, Rückert C. Synthetic biology ethics at iGEM: iGemer perspectives. Trends Biotechnol. 2018;36(10):985–987. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2018.06.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minehata M, Sture J, Shinomiya N, et al. Implementing biosecurity education: approaches, resources and programmes. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19(4):1473–1486. doi: 10.1007/s11948-011-9321-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novossiolova T. Biological security education handbook: the power of team-based learning. Bradford, UK: Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, University of Bradford; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Macnaghten P, Shah E, Ludwig D. Making dialogue work: responsible innovation and gene editing. In: The politics of knowledge in inclusive development and innovation. Routledge; 2022. pp. 243–255. doi: 10.4324/9781003112525-22
   Google Scholar
• Asveld L, Osseweijer P, Posada JA. Societal and ethical issues in industrial biotechnology. In: Fröhling M Hiete M, editors. Sustainability and life cycle assessment in industrial biotechnology. Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology. Vol. 173. Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 121–141. doi: 10.1007/10_2019_100
   Google Scholar
• Xie B, Shen Z, Wang K. Is preprint the future of science? A thirty year journey of online preprint services. arXiv:2102.09066; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Watson C. Rise of the preprint: how rapid data sharing during COVID-19 has changed science forever. Nat Med. 2022;28(1):2–5. doi: 10.1038/s41591-021-01654-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polka J, Puebla I, Pattinson D, et al. PReF: describing key preprint review features. OSF Preprints. 2022 January 27. doi: 10.31219/osf.io/8zj9w
   Google Scholar
• Smith JA, Sandbrink JB. Biosecurity in an age of open science. PLoS Biol. 2022;20(4):e3001600. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001600
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute of Health. Tools for the identification, assessment, management, and responsible communication of dual use research of concern: a companion guide to the United States government policies for oversight of life sciences dual use research of concern. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• BBSRC. MRC and wellcome trust position statement on dual use research of concern and research misuse. 2015. Available from: https://cms.wellcome.org/sites/default/files/wtp059491.pdf
   Google Scholar
• MacIntyre CR, Adam DC, Turner R, et al. Public awareness, acceptability and risk perception about infectious diseases dual-use research of concern: a cross-sectional survey. BMJ Open. 2020;10(1):e029134. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029134
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wain-Hobson S. Gain-of-function research can’t deliver pandemic predictions. Are there alternatives? Boll Atom Sci. 2022;27. Available from: https://thebulletin.org/2022/06/gain-of-function-research-cant-deliver-pandemic-predictions-are-there-alternatives/
   Google Scholar
• Shinomiya N, Minari J, Yoshizawa G, et al. Reconsidering the need for gain-of-function research on enhanced potential pandemic pathogens in the post-COVID-19 era. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022;10:966586. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.966586
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rappert B. Why has not there been more research of concern? Front Public Health. 2014;2:74. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2014.00074
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lakoff A. A fragile assemblage: mutant bird flu and the limits of risk assessment. Soc Stud Sci. 2017;47(3):376–397. doi: 10.1177/0306312716666420
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herington J, Tanona S. The social risks of science. Hastings Cent Rep. 2020;50(6):27–38. doi: 10.1002/hast.1196
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moritz R. Assessing dual use research of concern (DURC)-lessons learned from the United States government institutional DURC policy. Can J Microbiol. 2022;68(11):655–660. doi: 10.1139/cjm-2021-0344
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colussi IA. Biolaw and ‘the dual-use dilemma’: the freedom of scientific research in relationship with ‘traditional’ and emerging sciences and technologies. In: Valdés E Lecaros J, editors. Biolaw and policy in the twenty-first century, international library of ethics, Law, and the new medicine. Vol. 78. Springer International Publishing; 2019. pp. 239–255. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-05903-3_16
   Google Scholar
• Miller S. Concept of dual use. In: Dual use science and technology, ethics and weapons of mass destruction. Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 5–20. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-92606-3_2
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services. Framework for guiding funding decisions about proposed research involving enhanced potential pandemic pathogens. 2017. Available from: https://www.phe.gov/s3/dualuse/Documents/P3CO.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Weissgerber T, Riedel N, Kilicoglu H, et al. Automated screening of COVID-19 preprints: can we help authors to improve transparency and reproducibility? Nat Med. 2021;27(1):6–7. doi: 10.1038/s41591-020-01203-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz R, Barnett A, Bernard R, et al. Is the future of peer review automated? BMC Res Notes. 2022;15(1):203. doi: 10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolinsky H. The FBI and biohackers: an unusual relationship: the FBI has had some success reaching out to the DIY biology community in the USA, but European biohackers remain skeptical of the intentions of US law enforcement. EMBO Rep. 2016;17(6):793–796. doi: 10.15252/embr.201642483
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tocchetti S, Aguiton SA. Is an FBI agent a DIY biologist like any other? A cultural analysis of a biosecurity risk. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2015;40(5):825–853. doi: 10.1177/0162243915589634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castelyn C. Oversight of biohacking when the stakes are high: ethics police or FBI? Voices Bioeth. 2020;6. doi: 10.7916/vib.v6i.5898
   Google Scholar
• Arora S, van Dyck B, Argumedo A, et al. Choreographed consensus: the stifling of dissent at CRISPRcon 2019. Brighton, UK: ESRC STEPS Centre; 2019 June 28. Available from: https://steps-centre.org/blog/choreographed-consensus-the-stifling-of-dissent-at-crisprcon-2019/
   Google Scholar
• Yoshizawa G, van Est R, Yoshinaga D, et al. Responsible innovation in molecular robotics in Japan. Chem-Bio Inform J. 2018;18:164–172. doi: 10.1273/cbij.18.164
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inglesby T, Cicero A, Rivers C, et al. Biosafety and biosecurity in the era of synthetic biology: meeting the challenges in China and the U.S. J Biosaf Biosecur. 2019;1(2):73–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jobb.2019.09.003
   Google Scholar
• Wang L, Song J, Zhang W. Tianjin biosecurity guidelines for codes of conduct for scientists: promoting responsible sciences and strengthening biosecurity governance. J Biosaf Biosecur. 2021;3(2):82–83. doi: 10.1016/j.jobb.2021.08.001
   Google Scholar
• Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR. Science for the post-normal age. Futures. 1993;25(7):739–755. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stirling A. “Opening up” and ‘closing down’: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2008;33(2):262–294. doi: 10.1177/0162243907311265
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marris C, Jefferson C, Lentzos F. Negotiating the dynamics of uncomfortable knowledge: the case of dual use and synthetic biology. BioSocieties. 2014;9(4):393–420. doi: 10.1057/biosoc.2014.32
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saltman RB, Duran A. Governance, government, and the search for new provider models. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;5(1):33–42. doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.198
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patrone D, Resnik D, Chin L. Biosecurity and the review and publication of dual-use research of concern. Biosecur Bioterror. 2012;10(3):290–298. doi: 10.1089/bsp.2012.0011
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rychnovská D. Governing dual-use knowledge: from the politics of responsible science to the ethicalization of security. Secur Dial. 2016;47(4):310–328. doi: 10.1177/0967010616658848
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burgelman J-C. Politics and open science: how the European open science cloud became reality (the untold story). Data Intell. 2021;3(1):5–19. doi: 10.1162/dint_a_00069
   Google Scholar
• Biohackers DA. The politics of open science. London, UK: Pluto Press; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Minari J, Yoshizawa G, Shinomiya N. COVID-19 and the boundaries of open science and innovation: lessons of traceability from genomic data sharing and biosecurity. EMBO Rep. 2020;21(11):e51773. doi: 10.15252/embr.202051773
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar