Suchergebnisse

Collection and provision of scientific information for policy and decision-making is particularly important during emergencies or when uncertainty and ambiguity creates situation of fear and anxiety. This article offers two suggestions for addressing natural or technology risks, leveraging research by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) and project contributors. The first advice is that concepts and instruments for risk governance be recognised and used as intermediation between evidence and policy. The second is that the role of the Chief Scientific Adviser in public sector organisations includes those of the Chief Risk Officer. These suggestions could help address the challenge for policymakers to deal with uncertainty and emergency, when little or contradictory evidence is available.

Intro -- Disclaimer -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- About the Editors -- Chapter 1: Biosecurity for Synthetic Biology and Emerging Biotechnologies: Critical Challenges for Governance -- 1.1 An Introduction to the Dual-Use Nature of Emerging Biotechnology -- 1.2 History -- 1.3 Effective Governance and Policy for Biosecurity -- 1.4 Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 2: Emerging Biosecurity Threats and Responses: A Review of Published and Gray Literature -- 2.1 Introduction -- 2.2 Methods -- 2.3 Results and Discussion -- 2.3.1 US and EU Governmental Frameworks -- 2.3.1.1 US Framework -- 2.3.1.2 EU Framework -- 2.3.2 Threats Identified in the Literature -- 2.3.3 Responses Identified in the Literature -- 2.4 Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 3: Opportunities, Challenges, and Future Considerations for Top-Down Governance for Biosecurity and Synthetic Biology -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 Understanding the Scope and Limitations of Top-Down Governance for Biosecurity and Synthetic Biology -- 3.2.1 International Instruments for Biosecurity -- 3.2.1.1 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) -- 3.2.1.2 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) -- 3.2.1.3 Australia Group, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 and Others -- 3.2.2 National Implementation -- 3.2.2.1 Hard Law vs. Soft Law -- 3.2.2.2 Biosafety vs. Biosecurity, GMOs vs. Synthetic Biology -- 3.2.2.3 National Implementation: An Inevitable Patchwork -- 3.3 Key Novelties and Tensions Introduced by Synthetic Biology -- 3.3.1 Convergence -- 3.3.2 Democratization -- 3.3.3 Intangibility -- 3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations -- References -- Chapter 4: Biological Standards and Biosecurity: The Unexplored Link -- 4.1 Standards in Biology -- 4.2 Implications of Standards in Biosecurity in Terms of Risks -- 4.3 Universality -- 4.4 Chassis and Trojan Horses -- 4.5 Breaking Down the Species Barrier.

Synthetic biology is a field of biotechnology that is rapidly growing in various applications, such as in medicine, environmental sustainability, and energy production. However these technologies also have unforeseen risks and applications to humans and the environment. This open access book presents discussions on risks and mitigation strategies for these technologies including biosecurity, or the potential of synthetic biology technologies and processes to be deliberately misused for nefarious purposes. The book presents strategies to prevent, mitigate, and recover from 'dual-use concern' biosecurity challenges that may be raised by individuals, rogue states, or non-state actors. Several key topics are explored including opportunities to develop more coherent and scalable approaches to govern biosecurity from a laboratory perspective up to the international scale and strategies to prevent potential health and environmental hazards posed by deliberate misuse of synthetic biology without stifling innovation. The book brings together the expertise of top scholars in synthetic biology and biotechnology risk assessment, management, and communication to discuss potential biosecurity governing strategies and offer perspectives for collaboration in oversight and future regulatory guidance.

AbstractRegulatory agencies have long adopted a three‐tier framework for risk assessment. We build on this structure to propose a tiered approach for resilience assessment that can be integrated into the existing regulatory processes. Comprehensive approaches to assessing resilience at appropriate and operational scales, reconciling analytical complexity as needed with stakeholder needs and resources available, and ultimately creating actionable recommendations to enhance resilience are still lacking. Our proposed framework consists of tiers by which analysts can select resilience assessment and decision support tools to inform associated management actions relative to the scope and urgency of the risk and the capacity of resource managers to improve system resilience. The resilience management framework proposed is not intended to supplant either risk management or the many existing efforts of resilience quantification method development, but instead provide a guide to selecting tools that are appropriate for the given analytic need. The goal of this tiered approach is to intentionally parallel the tiered approach used in regulatory contexts so that resilience assessment might be more easily and quickly integrated into existing structures and with existing policies.