During July 10-13, 2011, 68 participants from 32 countries gathered in Istanbul, Turkey for a workshop organized by the United States National Research Council on Anticipating Biosecurity Challenges of the Global Expansion of High-containment Biological Laboratories. The United States Department of State's Biosecurity Engagement Program sponsored the workshop, which was held in partnership with the Turkish Academy of Sciences. The international workshop examined biosafety and biosecurity issues related to the design, construction, maintenance, and operation of high-containment biological laboratories- equivalent to United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention biological safety level 3 or 4 labs. Although these laboratories are needed to characterize highly dangerous human and animal pathogens, assist in disease surveillance, and produce vaccines, they are complex systems with inherent risks. Biosecurity Challenges of the Global Expansion of High-Containment Biological Laboratories summarizes the workshop discussion, which included the following topics: Technological options to meet diagnostic, research, and other goals; Laboratory construction and commissioning; Operational maintenance to provide sustainable capabilities, safety, and security; and Measures for encouraging a culture of responsible conduct. Workshop attendees described the history and current challenges they face in their individual laboratories. Speakers recounted steps they were taking to improve safety and security, from running training programs to implementing a variety of personnel reliability measures. Many also spoke about physical security, access controls, and monitoring pathogen inventories. Workshop participants also identified tensions in the field and suggested possible areas for action.

The fed. gov¿t. responded to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent anthrax attacks with increased focus on and funding for biodefense. High-containment labs. (HCL) play a critical role in the biodefense effort, offering the hope of better responses to an attack and a better understanding of the threat posed by bioterrorism. However, they also could increase the risk of a biological attack by serving as a potential source of materials or training. Policymakers have become increasingly interested in the oversight of these facilities following reports of accidents, regulatory noncompliance, and community resistance. A key task for policymakers is to define their goals for enhancing oversight of HCL. Illustrations

Over the past two decades bioscience facilities worldwide have experienced multiple safety and security incidents, including many notable incidents at so-called "sophisticated facilities" in North America and Western Europe. This demonstrates that a system based solely on biosafety levels and security regulations may not be sufficient. Setting the stage for a substantively different approach for managing the risks of working with biological agents in laboratories, Laboratory Biorisk Management: Biosafety and Biosecurity introduces the concept of biorisk management—a new paradigm that encompasses both laboratory biosafety and biosecurity. The book also provides laboratory managers and directors with the information and technical tools needed for its implementation. The basis for this new paradigm is a three-pronged, multi-disciplinary model of assessment, mitigation, and performance (the AMP model). The application of the methodologies, criteria, and guidance outlined in the book helps to reduce the risk of laboratories becoming the sources of infectious disease outbreaks. This is a valuable resource for those seeking to embrace and implement biorisk management systems in their facilities and operations, including the biological research, clinical diagnostic, and production/manufacturing communities.

In recent years much has happened to justify an examination of biological research in light of national security concerns. The destructive application of biotechnology research includes activities such as spreading common pathogens or transforming them into even more lethal forms. Policymakers and the scientific community at large must put forth a vigorous and immediate response to this challenge. This new book by the National Research Council recommends that the government expand existing regulations and rely on self-governance by scientists rather than adopt intrusive new policies. One key recommendation of the report is that the government should not attempt to regulate scientific publishing but should trust scientists and journals to screen their papers for security risks, a task some journals have already taken up. With biological information and tools widely distributed, regulating only U.S. researchers would have little effect. A new International Forum on Biosecurity should encourage the adoption of similar measures around the world. Seven types of risky studies would require approval by the Institutional Biosafety Committees that already oversee recombinant DNA research at some 400 U.S. institutions. These "experiments of concern" include making an infectious agent more lethal and rendering vaccines powerless.

On October 17, 2014, spurred by incidents at U.S. government laboratories that raised serious biosafety concerns, the United States government launched a one-year deliberative process to address the continuing controversy surrounding so-called "gain-of-function" (GOF) research on respiratory pathogens with pandemic potential. The gain of function controversy began in late 2011 with the question of whether to publish the results of two experiments involving H5N1 avian influenza and continued to focus on certain research with highly pathogenic avian influenza over the next three years. The heart of the U.S. process is an evaluation of the potential risks and benefits of certain types of GOF experiments with influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses that would inform the development and adoption of a new U.S. Government policy governing the funding and conduct of GOF research. Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research is the summary of a two-day public symposia on GOF research. Convened in December 2014 by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council, the main focus of this event was to discuss principles important for, and key considerations in, the design of risk and benefit assessments of GOF research. Participants examined the underlying scientific and technical questions that are the source of current discussion and debate over GOF research involving pathogens with pandemic potential. This report is a record of the presentations and discussion of the meeting.

This is the third edition of this manual which contains updated practical guidance on biosafety techniques in laboratories at all levels. It is organised into nine sections and issues covered include: microbiological risk assessment; lab design and facilities; biosecurity concepts; safety equipment; contingency planning; disinfection and sterilisation; the transport of infectious substances; biosafety and the safe use of recombinant DNA technology; chemical, fire and electrical safety aspects; safety organisation and training programmes; and the safety checklist.