Complementarity of International Instruments in the Field of Biosecurity.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the devastating impact of infectious disease outbreaks and the threat of emerging and re-emerging dangerous pathogens, independent of their origin. Natural, accidental, and deliberate disease outbreaks all need systems in place for an effective public health response. The best known international instrument in the field of public health is the WHO International Health Regulations (2005). Although the International Health Regulations are mainly focused on natural disease outbreaks, the actions to take to comply with them also contribute to biosecurity and non-proliferation. This paper examines in case of full implementation of the International Health Regulations, what other actions states should take to comply with international biosecurity instruments, including the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, to effectively prevent and defend against intentional biological threats. An overview of international instruments from different disciplines regarding biosecurity is presented. Furthermore, this paper clarifies the similarities between the international biosecurity instruments and addresses the additional requirements that instruments stipulate. From a detailed comparison between the instruments it can be concluded that, to adhere to all legally-binding international biosecurity instruments, specific non-proliferation and export control measures are necessary in addition to full implementation of the International Health Regulations. Additionally, an overview of non-legally binding instruments in the field of biosecurity is presented and practical implementation examples are highlighted. Compliance with legally binding instruments can be improved by precise guidance provided by non-legally binding instruments that are clear and attuned to the situation on the ground. To improve understanding of the existing international instruments, this paper aims to provide an overview of the international legal biosecurity framework to biosecurity experts, policymakers, civil servants, and practitioners. It offers possible practical applications for the politico-legal context and accommodates the enhancement of full employment of biosecurity resources for an improved multidisciplinary capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease outbreaks.

Dual-Use Quickscan: A Web-Based Tool to Assess the Dual-Use Potential of Life Science Research.

Research on pathogenic organisms is crucial for medical, biological and agricultural developments. However, biological agents as well as associated knowledge and techniques, can also be misused, for example for the development of biological weapons. Potential malicious use of well-intended research, referred to as "dual-use research", poses a threat to public health and the environment. There are various international resources providing frameworks to assess dual-use potential of the research concerned. However, concrete instructions for researchers on how to perform a dual-use risk assessment is largely lacking. The international need for practical dual-use monitoring and risk assessment instructions, in addition to the need to raise awareness among scientists about potential dual-use aspects of their research has been identified over the last years by the Netherlands Biosecurity Office, through consulting national and international biorisk stakeholders. We identified that Biorisk Management Advisors and researchers need a practical tool to facilitate a dual-use assessment on their specific research. Therefore, the Netherlands Biosecurity Office developed a web-based Dual-Use Quickscan (www.dualusequickscan.com), that can be used periodically by researchers working with microorganisms to assess potential dual-use risks of their research by answering a set of fifteen yes/no questions. The questions for the tool were extracted from existing international open resources, and categorized into three themes: characteristics of the biological agent, knowledge and technology about the biological agent, and consequences of misuse. The results of the Quickscan provide the researcher with an indication of the dual-use potential of the research and can be used as a basis for further discussions with a Biorisk Management Advisor. The Dual-Use Quickscan can be embedded in a broader system of biosafety and biosecurity that includes dual-use monitoring and awareness within organizations. Increased international attention to examine pathogens with pandemic potential has been enhanced by the current COVID-19 pandemic, hence monitoring of dual-use potential urgently needs to be encouraged.

Systematic approach towards establishing a National Inventory of Dangerous Pathogens.

International regulations stipulate that countries need to organize their biosafety and biosecurity systems to minimize the risk of accidental (biosafety) or malicious intentional (biosecurity) release of dangerous pathogens. International Health Regulations (IHR) benchmarks from the WHO state that even for a level of limited capacity countries need to 'Identify and document human and animal health facilities that store/maintain dangerous pathogens and toxins in the relevant sectors and health professionals responsible for them'. This study provides a stepwise, systematic approach and best practices for countries to initiate a national inventory of dangerous pathogens. With a national inventory of dangerous pathogens a country can identify and document information in a dedicated electronic database on institutes that store or maintain dangerous pathogens. The systematic approach for the implementation of a national inventory of dangerous pathogens consists of four stages; identification, preparation, implementation, and maintenance and evaluation. In the identification phase, commitment of the relevant national ministries is to be established, and a responsible government entity needs to be identified. In the preparatory phase, a list of pathogens to be incorporated in the inventory, as well as a list of institutes to include, is to be agreed upon. In the implementation phase, the institutes are contacted, and the collected data is stored safely and securely in a electronical database. Finally, in the maintenance and evaluation phase meaningful insights are derived and reported to the relevant government authorities. Also, preparations for updates and modifications are undertaken, such as modifications of pathogen lists or institute lists. The approach and database, which is available from the authors, have been tested for the implementation of a national inventory of dangerous pathogens in multiple East-African countries. A national inventory of dangerous pathogens helps countries in strengthening national biosafety and biosecurity as well as in their compliance to IHR.

Building biosecurity for synthetic biology.

The fast-paced field of synthetic biology is fundamentally changing the global biosecurity framework. Current biosecurity regulations and strategies are based on previous governance paradigms for pathogen-oriented security, recombinant DNA research, and broader concerns related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Many scholarly discussions and biosecurity practitioners are therefore concerned that synthetic biology outpaces established biosafety and biosecurity measures to prevent deliberate and malicious or inadvertent and accidental misuse of synthetic biology's processes or products. This commentary proposes three strategies to improve biosecurity: Security must be treated as an investment in the future applicability of the technology; social scientists and policy makers should be engaged early in technology development and forecasting; and coordination among global stakeholders is necessary to ensure acceptable levels of risk.

Accelerating Action in Global Health Security: Global Biosecurity Dialogue as a Model for Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda.

Biosecurity and biosafety measures are designed to mitigate intentional and accidental biological risks that pose potentially catastrophic consequences to a country's health system, security, and political and economic stability. Unfortunately, biosecurity and biosafety are often under-prioritized nationally, regionally, and globally. Security leaders often deemphasize accidental and deliberate biological threats relative to other challenges to peace and security. Given emerging biological risks, including those associated with rapid technological advances and terrorist and state interest in weapons of mass destruction, biosecurity deserves stronger emphasis in health and security fora. The Global Biosecurity Dialogue (GBD) was initiated to align national and regional donor initiatives toward a common set of measurable targets. The GBD was launched by the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), with support from Global Affairs Canada's Weapons Threat Reduction Program and the Open Philanthropy Project, and in coordination with the government of The Netherlands as the 2018-19 Chair of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) Action Package Prevent-3 (APP3) on Biosafety and Biosecurity. The GBD provides a multisectoral forum for sharing models, enabling new actions to achieve biosecurity-related targets, and promoting biosecurity as an integral component of health security. The GBD has contributed to new national and continent-wide actions, including the African Union and Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention's new regional Initiative to Strengthen Biosafety and Biosecurity in Africa. Here we present the GBD as a model for catalyzing action within APP3. We describe how the benefits of this approach could expand to other GHSA Action Packages and international health security initiatives.

Establishment of a National Inventory of Dangerous Pathogens in the Republic of Uganda.

One of the challenges of global biosecurity is to protect and control dangerous pathogens from unauthorized access and intentional release. A practical and feasible option to protect life science institutes against theft and sabotage, and secure their biological materials against misuse, is to establish a national electronic database with a comprehensive overview of the locations of all controlled dangerous pathogens in a country. This national database could be used as an instrument to secure and account for dangerous pathogens in a country, but it could also assist in establishing a biosecurity assessing and monitoring system for laboratories that work with these controlled biological agents. The Republic of Uganda is one of the first countries, prompted by the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Joint External Evaluation (JEE), to implement a national electronic database that assembles information collected from relevant Ugandan laboratories. This Ugandan Inventory of Dangerous Pathogens is different from an institute-specific pathogen inventory system, as it is intended to store the information collected from laboratories in the country working with dangerous pathogens in 1 centralized secure location. The Uganda National Council for Science and Technology (UNCST) has coordinated the implementation of the Ugandan national inventory. The inventory was recognized by the WHO JEE as contributing to Uganda's developed capacities regarding biosafety and biosecurity. This article describes the steps in implementing Uganda's National Inventory of Dangerous Pathogens. In addition, it presents a straightforward approach that can be adapted by other countries that aim to enhance their biosecurity capacities.

The Vulnerability Scan, a Web Tool to Increase Institutional Biosecurity Resilience.

The importance of vigilance within organizations working with high-risk biological material receives increasing attention. However, an in-depth and comprehensive tool, dedicated to increase awareness of potential risks and to assess an organization's current biosecurity vulnerabilities, has not been available yet. We developed the "Biosecurity Vulnerability Scan," a web tool that identifies biosecurity gaps in an organization based on eight biosecurity pillars of good practice. Although the tool aims primarily to assist biosafety and biosecurity officers, it can also be useful to researchers working with dangerous pathogens, their principal investigators, management, or those responsible for security issues in the life sciences. Results are only stored locally and are provided in an "overview report," which includes information on relevant risks and control measures. This can support well-substantiated decision-making on strengthening biosecurity measures within a specific organization. With this article, we aim to support institutes to increase their overall security resilience and to improve institutional biosecurity in particular by providing practical recommendations. The Biosecurity Vulnerability Scan is available at www.biosecurityvulnerabilityscan.nl.

Development of a Biosecurity Checklist for Laboratory Assessment and Monitoring.

INTRODUCTION: Laboratory biosecurity is of continuously growing interest due to increasing concerns about deliberate misuse of biological materials and emerging biological risks. These risks continue to be magnified by globalization, the rapid pace of scientific development, and dual-use technologies. Worldwide laboratory capacities are expanding, which calls for concrete actions to improve laboratory biosafety and biosecurity practices to protect researchers and the community. Hence, laboratories require comprehensive biorisk management programs to minimize the risk of accidental and deliberate release of infectious biological materials. OBJECTIVE: Malaysia has prioritized the concern of national biosecurity and aims to consolidate laboratory biosecurity performance to detect and prevent the deliberate release of biological agents. METHODS: Two 3-day workshops were organized over the course of four months in which Malaysia collaborated with The Netherlands. This bilateral engagement aimed to integrate biosecurity practices in their national biorisk management programs, and resulted into a comprehensive biosecurity checklist for laboratory assessment and monitoring. RESULTS: This biosecurity checklist is based on Malaysian and Dutch expert opinions and national and international guidelines and regulations. The biosecurity checklist is a survey-driven tool that consists of a set of concrete questions for each key biosecurity area, which are discussion points for assessment. CONCLUSION: We display a practical biosecurity checklist for laboratory assessment and monitoring. Although the presented checklist was the template for the specific Malaysia checklist, it could serve as a template for other countries.

Environmental risk assessment of replication competent viral vectors applied in clinical trials: potential effects of inserted sequences.

Risk assessments of clinical applications involving genetically modified viral vectors are carried out according to general principles that are implemented in many national and regional legislations, e.g., in Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Union. Recent developments in vector design have a large impact on the concepts that underpin the risk assessments of viral vectors that are used in clinical trials. The use of (conditionally) replication competent viral vectors (RCVVs) may increase the likelihood of the exposure of the environment around the patient, compared to replication defective viral vectors. Based on this assumption we have developed a methodology for the environmental risk assessment of replication competent viral vectors, which is presented in this review. Furthermore, the increased likelihood of exposure leads to a reevaluation of what would constitute a hazardous gene product in viral vector therapies, and a keen interest in new developments in the inserts used. One of the trends is the use of inserts produced by synthetic biology. In this review the implications of these developments for the environmental risk assessment of RCVVs are highlighted, with examples from current clinical trials. The conclusion is drawn that RCVVs, notwithstanding their replication competency, can be applied in an environmentally safe way, in particular if adequate built-in safeties are incorporated, like conditional replication competency, as mitigating factors to reduce adverse environmental effects that could occur.