Mapping biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) and BSL-4 laboratories for public health threats reduction

Abstract Aim No international organization has a comprehensive register or global oversight of Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3)/BSL-4 laboratories. Different countries use different standards for designation of pathogens and laboratories. This study aimed to investigate the global geospatial distribution of BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories to inform biosafety efforts. Subject and methodology Publicly available data were used to collect data on BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories globally. Further details of each laboratory, including the locations (i.e., latitude/longitude coordinates) and pathogens worked on, were collected manually from Google Maps and the official Web pages of laboratories, respectively. The most recent and highest biosafety level was used to classify the laboratories as BSL3 or BSL4. Other, country-level indicators were analyzed and were collected from the World Bank, the Worldometer, and the 2021 Global Health Security Index Report. The presence of dual-use research concerns guidelines in a country was reviewed for each country reporting at least one BSL-3 laboratory. Results We identified 3515 BSL-3 laboratories in 149 countries, with nearly half (47.1%) in the United States. Details on geolocations and pathogens they handled are publicly available for 955 of these labs. The United Kingdom had the highest rate ( N = 9) of BSL-3 labs per million population, while Bangladesh had the lowest. High-income countries house 82% of these laboratories. There are 110 BSL-4 laboratories in 34 middle- and high-income countries, and 46% are in the WHO’s Europe region. Notably, from the health security index perspective, 91.6% of countries with at least one BSL-3 laboratory lack guidelines for dual-use research of concern. Conclusion BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories are unevenly distributed by income level, population density, and health security index. More than 90% of the countries with at least one BSL3 laboratory have no oversight/regulations regarding dual-use research. This study can inform future global governance efforts to improve biosafety.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Public Health
Published
2025-05-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-025-02492-3
Primary Topic
Bacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

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

Mapping biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) and BSL-4 laboratories for public health threats reduction

Atalay Goshu Muluneh, Aye Moa, C. Raina MacIntyre, Samsung Lim
Journal of Public Health
Bacillus and Francisella bacterial research
article

Mapping biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) and BSL-4 laboratories for public health threats reduction

Atalay Goshu Muluneh, Aye Moa, C. Raina MacIntyre, Samsung Lim
article en

Abstract

Abstract Aim No international organization has a comprehensive register or global oversight of Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3)/BSL-4 laboratories. Different countries use different standards for designation of pathogens and laboratories. This study aimed to investigate the global geospatial distribution of BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories to inform biosafety efforts. Subject and methodology Publicly available data were used to collect data on BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories globally. Further details of each laboratory, including the locations (i.e., latitude/longitude coordinates) and pathogens worked on, were collected manually from Google Maps and the official Web pages of laboratories, respectively. The most recent and highest biosafety level was used to classify the laboratories as BSL3 or BSL4. Other, country-level indicators were analyzed and were collected from the World Bank, the Worldometer, and the 2021 Global Health Security Index Report. The presence of dual-use research concerns guidelines in a country was reviewed for each country reporting at least one BSL-3 laboratory. Results We identified 3515 BSL-3 laboratories in 149 countries, with nearly half (47.1%) in the United States. Details on geolocations and pathogens they handled are publicly available for 955 of these labs. The United Kingdom had the highest rate ( N = 9) of BSL-3 labs per million population, while Bangladesh had the lowest. High-income countries house 82% of these laboratories. There are 110 BSL-4 laboratories in 34 middle- and high-income countries, and 46% are in the WHO’s Europe region. Notably, from the health security index perspective, 91.6% of countries with at least one BSL-3 laboratory lack guidelines for dual-use research of concern. Conclusion BSL-3 and BSL-4 laboratories are unevenly distributed by income level, population density, and health security index. More than 90% of the countries with at least one BSL3 laboratory have no oversight/regulations regarding dual-use research. This study can inform future global governance efforts to improve biosafety.

Journal of Public Health
UNSW Sydney (AU), CSIRO Health and Biosecurity (AU), Arizona State University (US), University of Gondar (ET)
University of New South Wales
Openalex Percentile: Top 90%
Bacillus and Francisella bacterial research
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.