Principal Investigator Responsibility for Flagging Research with Dual-Use or Pandemic Risk

The new United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual-Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential places primary responsibility on the proposing principal investigator to flag potential need for special review. This approach may carry significant risks, given that investigators have incentives to downplay the types of risks the policy aims to address, compounded by substantial opposition to the policy from many virologists. However, this commentary argues that such an approach is much more consistent with proven models of research oversight for protecting human subjects and animals and may be essential in the long run. It identifies the need for several independent but potentially mutually reinforcing preconditions for success-which will require creativity and investment not fully specified in the regulations: researcher training on dual-use and population-level biosafety risks, effective institutional-level support for and scrutiny of investigator evaluation, cultural change, checks and balances, and speedy evaluation of low-risk research.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Biosafety
Published
2024-12-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1089/apb.2024.0059
Primary Topic
Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Principal Investigator Responsibility for Flagging Research with Dual-Use or Pandemic Risk

Marc Lipsitch
1 links
Applied Biosafety
Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
article

Principal Investigator Responsibility for Flagging Research with Dual-Use or Pandemic Risk

Marc Lipsitch
article en

Abstract

The new United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual-Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential places primary responsibility on the proposing principal investigator to flag potential need for special review. This approach may carry significant risks, given that investigators have incentives to downplay the types of risks the policy aims to address, compounded by substantial opposition to the policy from many virologists. However, this commentary argues that such an approach is much more consistent with proven models of research oversight for protecting human subjects and animals and may be essential in the long run. It identifies the need for several independent but potentially mutually reinforcing preconditions for success-which will require creativity and investment not fully specified in the regulations: researcher training on dual-use and population-level biosafety risks, effective institutional-level support for and scrutiny of investigator evaluation, cultural change, checks and balances, and speedy evaluation of low-risk research.

Applied BiosafetyVol. 30(2)
Harvard University (US)
Open Philanthropy Project
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 67%
Biomedical Ethics and Regulation
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Principal Investigator Responsibility for Flagging Research with Dual-Use or Pandemic Risk — Marc Lipsitch · Applied Biosafety (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS