Thanks for this insightful look at the work of the APPG.
For biosecurity I think NC3R (reduce in animal research in labs), provides a good model for a successful institution that has changed norms in life sciences, through a mixture of funding research, advocacy and practical information.
Though BBRSC, MRC report on consideration of funding seems quite security conscious, not sure if EPRSC have any statement that is similar. In addition this is at funding stage only. Probably need for some review before publication.
In terms of having a minister for dual use research this seems quite high cost to ask for, and low worth think Piers Millet suggestion of liaison officer more useful.
Of interest the office of science and technology in 2009 recommended against DNA screening, (not sure if this is latest report). Would recommend broader screening of biological material and restriction of equipment as well.
In terms of food security BBRSC and EPRSC already fund this broad area so may be case of seeing if there is any room for consideration of food security in more extreme risks and research projects towards that. Would be helpful if there was a UK academic that was sympathetic.
In terms of mask4all I agree with you that evidence is patchy so I think of all the things to ask for this doesn’t seem to be worth time, as likely many other groups MP’s, media, public asking for this, and unsure if this is useful.
Hi, Thank you some super useful points here. Will look at some of the BBRSC reports. I know about NC3R and think it is a good approach.
Only point I disagree with:
In terms of having a minister for dual use research this seems quite high cost to ask for, and low worth think Piers Millet suggestion of liaison officer more useful.
To clarify this is not a new Minister but adding this area of responsibility to a Ministerial portfolio so not at all a high cost ask (although ideally would do so in legislation which would be higher cost).
I think this is needed as however capable the civil service is at coordination there needs to be a Minister who is interested and held accountable in order to drive change and maintain momentum.
Sorry I misread point about minister, I agree that ministerial input as well, would be helpful. Also my take is that setting up a UK Nc3R type group may be harder than seems. As after 2015 concerns from dual use research, many countries set ‘centre for biosecurities’ that regulate dual use research eg. France and Denmark. However in the UK, life sciences funding bodies were keen to self regulate rather than set up something similar. So I suspect may not support as could quite credibly argue that they have been effective at regulating dual use research themselves.
Thanks for this insightful look at the work of the APPG.
For biosecurity I think NC3R (reduce in animal research in labs), provides a good model for a successful institution that has changed norms in life sciences, through a mixture of funding research, advocacy and practical information.
Though BBRSC, MRC report on consideration of funding seems quite security conscious, not sure if EPRSC have any statement that is similar. In addition this is at funding stage only. Probably need for some review before publication.
In terms of having a minister for dual use research this seems quite high cost to ask for, and low worth think Piers Millet suggestion of liaison officer more useful.
Of interest the office of science and technology in 2009 recommended against DNA screening, (not sure if this is latest report). Would recommend broader screening of biological material and restriction of equipment as well.
In terms of food security BBRSC and EPRSC already fund this broad area so may be case of seeing if there is any room for consideration of food security in more extreme risks and research projects towards that. Would be helpful if there was a UK academic that was sympathetic.
In terms of mask4all I agree with you that evidence is patchy so I think of all the things to ask for this doesn’t seem to be worth time, as likely many other groups MP’s, media, public asking for this, and unsure if this is useful.
Hi, Thank you some super useful points here. Will look at some of the BBRSC reports. I know about NC3R and think it is a good approach.
Only point I disagree with:
To clarify this is not a new Minister but adding this area of responsibility to a Ministerial portfolio so not at all a high cost ask (although ideally would do so in legislation which would be higher cost).
I think this is needed as however capable the civil service is at coordination there needs to be a Minister who is interested and held accountable in order to drive change and maintain momentum.
Sorry I misread point about minister, I agree that ministerial input as well, would be helpful. Also my take is that setting up a UK Nc3R type group may be harder than seems. As after 2015 concerns from dual use research, many countries set ‘centre for biosecurities’ that regulate dual use research eg. France and Denmark. However in the UK, life sciences funding bodies were keen to self regulate rather than set up something similar. So I suspect may not support as could quite credibly argue that they have been effective at regulating dual use research themselves.