I definitely donât think âsounds badâ (I really, really would like it to be easier for publishers to adopt dual-use screening best practices) but I do think âsounds partly duplicative of other workâ (there are other groups looking into what publishers need /â want, seems good to collaborate with them and use their prior work) and âshould be done thoughtfullyâ (for example, should be done with someone who has a good appreciation for the fact that, right now, there does not exist a set of âdual use best practicesâ that an organization could simply adopt).
Iâm going to gesture towards some related initiatives that might be of interest, from some folks who have already undertaken (at least some of the) âLetâs talk to the platforms, ask what they need, and give it to themâ step:
The USAâs NSABB met in September with their main agenda items being on revisiting is currently working on revisiting its policies on managing and oversight of P3CO and DURC, so oversight frameworks are evolving (you can see some of the people involved based on the meeting agenda)
The Visibility Initiative for Responsible Science is shortly going to release a set of case studies on biological risk management across a large set of organizations (including iGEM, where I currently work) which should be helpful for identifying needs
I definitely donât think âsounds badâ (I really, really would like it to be easier for publishers to adopt dual-use screening best practices) but I do think âsounds partly duplicative of other workâ (there are other groups looking into what publishers need /â want, seems good to collaborate with them and use their prior work) and âshould be done thoughtfullyâ (for example, should be done with someone who has a good appreciation for the fact that, right now, there does not exist a set of âdual use best practicesâ that an organization could simply adopt).
Iâm going to gesture towards some related initiatives that might be of interest, from some folks who have already undertaken (at least some of the) âLetâs talk to the platforms, ask what they need, and give it to themâ step:
The USAâs NSABB met in September with their main agenda items being on revisiting is currently working on revisiting its policies on managing and oversight of P3CO and DURC, so oversight frameworks are evolving (you can see some of the people involved based on the meeting agenda)
The Visibility Initiative for Responsible Science is shortly going to release a set of case studies on biological risk management across a large set of organizations (including iGEM, where I currently work) which should be helpful for identifying needs
The Partnership on AI had a workstream on Publication Norms for Responsible AI that involved a lot of stakeholder engagement /â interviewing
One of the NTI BIRRI working groups is on Standards for Funders, Grantees, and Publishers to Identify and Mitigate Biological Risks
Anyway, I feel like one way in which this project could go wrong is viewing itself as trying to lock in a new standard, rather than running an experiment in biosecurity governance that is part of the project of Consensus-finding on risks and benefits of research.