The Policy–Practice Gap in Global Biosafety and Biosecurity: Cross-National Evidence from Biosafety Professionals

Introduction: Biosafety and biosecurity play increasingly important roles in global health security. Although many countries have established national policies to govern these practices, the existence of regulation does not guarantee its application or stronger biosecurity in practice. Methods: We analyzed survey data collected from biosafety and biosecurity practitioners in > 40 countries. An institutional-level biosecurity implementation index was developed and aligned with country-level Global Health Security (GHS) Index scores to construct a policy–practice gap (PPG) index. Descriptive analyses and multivariable regression models were used to assess variation in implementation and to identify factors associated with implementation scores. Results: High-income countries had policy development outpacing institutional implementation (PPG mean = 23.5). In contrast, low- and middle-income countries obtained higher implementation scores than their national policy frameworks (PPG mean = −35.7). The study also identified areas requiring greater attention to implementation, including psychological programs for personnel vetting, cross-border transfer, end-use transfer, and cybersecurity. Multivariable analyses showed that experience working in high-containment laboratories, engagement in international collaboration (β = 6.9, p < 0.05), access to high-quality training (β = 2.3, p < 0.05), and adequate institutional financial support (β = 3.51, p < 0.05) were positively associated with implementation index. The magnitude and significance of these associations varied between U.S.-based and non-U.S. respondents. Conclusions: These findings help to understand the differences between national biosecurity policies and implementation across many countries. It shows the limitations of policy-only approaches to strengthening global biosecurity and informs future efforts to address some specific biosecurity practices.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Applied Biosafety
Published
2026-05-10
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/15356760261446979
Primary Topic
Bacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Policy–Practice Gap in Global Biosafety and Biosecurity: Cross-National Evidence from Biosafety Professionals

David R. Gillum, An Tran, Kathleen M. Vogel
Applied Biosafety
Bacillus and Francisella bacterial research
article

The Policy–Practice Gap in Global Biosafety and Biosecurity: Cross-National Evidence from Biosafety Professionals

David R. Gillum, An Tran, Kathleen M. Vogel
article en

Abstract

Introduction: Biosafety and biosecurity play increasingly important roles in global health security. Although many countries have established national policies to govern these practices, the existence of regulation does not guarantee its application or stronger biosecurity in practice. Methods: We analyzed survey data collected from biosafety and biosecurity practitioners in > 40 countries. An institutional-level biosecurity implementation index was developed and aligned with country-level Global Health Security (GHS) Index scores to construct a policy–practice gap (PPG) index. Descriptive analyses and multivariable regression models were used to assess variation in implementation and to identify factors associated with implementation scores. Results: High-income countries had policy development outpacing institutional implementation (PPG mean = 23.5). In contrast, low- and middle-income countries obtained higher implementation scores than their national policy frameworks (PPG mean = −35.7). The study also identified areas requiring greater attention to implementation, including psychological programs for personnel vetting, cross-border transfer, end-use transfer, and cybersecurity. Multivariable analyses showed that experience working in high-containment laboratories, engagement in international collaboration (β = 6.9, p < 0.05), access to high-quality training (β = 2.3, p < 0.05), and adequate institutional financial support (β = 3.51, p < 0.05) were positively associated with implementation index. The magnitude and significance of these associations varied between U.S.-based and non-U.S. respondents. Conclusions: These findings help to understand the differences between national biosecurity policies and implementation across many countries. It shows the limitations of policy-only approaches to strengthening global biosecurity and informs future efforts to address some specific biosecurity practices.

Applied Biosafety
University of Nevada, Reno (US), Institute for the Future (US), Arizona State University (US)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
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.