Publications

AI-enabled research might cause immense harm if it is used to design pathogens with worrying new properties. To prevent this, we need better collaboration between governments, AI developers and experts in biosafety and biosecurity.

Great benefits to humanity will likely ensue from advances in artificial intelligence (AI) models trained on or capable of meaningfully manipulating substantial quantities of biological data, from speeding up drug and vaccine design to improving crop yields.^1-3 But as with any powerful new technology, such biological models will also pose considerable risks.

The 2024 meeting of the Southeast Asia Strategic Multilateral Biosecurity Dialogue was held in Singapore, with participants from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and the United States. The dialogue is conducted at the Track 1.5 level, with current and former government officials—participating in their personal capacity—and civil society experts collaborating to identify priority threats and gaps, share experiences and lessons, and propose opportunities to strengthen national and regional resilience against natural, accidental, and deliberate biological threats. 

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security convened an in-person, not-for-attribution stakeholder discussion on April 25, 2024, to: 1) examine how reusable respirators (RRs) used at scale would protect against supply chain shocks in large emergencies, cost less per respirator than single-use disposable respirators over the life of the product, and provide better protection for workers; and 2) inform a national strategy to promote stockpiling of RRs by the US government, encourage greater adoption of RRs by the healthcare sector, incentivize innovation in RR design, and create a stronger demand signal for industry.

At the end of May, 194 member states of the World Health Organization (WHO) will meet for the World Health Assembly. Negotiations underway now will determine whether they vote then to adopt a pandemic agreement. For the past 2 years, discussions have focused on articulating essential components of a robust and equitable architecture for pandemic preparedness and response. Despite this, talks have failed to produce sufficient consensus on a detailed draft, prompting the intergovernmental negotiating body to propose a “streamlined” version.

Rasmussen et al. argue that “increasing oversight across virology or all microbe research would represent a misdirection of resources and would fail to provide a commensurate increase in safety or security” and “harm surveillance, antiviral discovery, monitoring for resistance to antivirals and vaccines, and other critical efforts.” On the contrary, a strengthened version of the recommendations of the National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity (NSABB) is crucial for the success of microbiological science. Implementing these recommendations would reduce the risks of a deliberate or accidental pandemic, while using precious research resources efficiently, restoring trust in science, strengthening US leadership in biosecurity and biosafety, and safeguarding the biomedical research enterprise, as ASM itself has said.

On May 24 and 25, 2023, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security (“the Center”) co-hosted a dialogue (“the dialogue”) with the Regional Centre for Biotechnology of the Department of Biotechnology in the Indian Ministry of Science and Technology, in Washington, DC, to discuss biosecurity issues of importance to both India and the United States. The dialogue aimed to increase knowledge of prevention and response efforts for natural, deliberate, and accidental biological threats in India and the US; share best practices and innovations; examine opportunities for partnership and collaboration; develop and deepen relationships among dialogue participants; and identify issues that should be elevated to the attention of Indian or US government officials.

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security co-convened government officials and other stakeholders for a Southeast Asia Strategic Multilateral Biosecurity Dialogue meeting from April 26-28 in Cebu, Philippines. It was the first in-person meeting of this series since SARS-CoV-2 emerged in 2019. This is the meeting Report from the 2023 Dialogue Session. 

The Tianjin Biosecurity Guidelines for Codes of Conduct for Scientists are a set of ten principles designed to promote responsible science and strengthen biosecurity governance. They should be broadly adopted, including being endorsed by the Biological Weapons Convention at its 9th Review Conference in November 2022.

This study examined the feasibility of creating a new nongovernmental health security research policy center in Asia, how such a center might benefit the advancement of policies promoting health security, and where such a center might be located. Health security policy encompasses numerous aspects of global health, including emerging infectious diseases, epidemics, medical and public health preparedness and response, deliberate and accidental biological threats, risk management related to advanced life science research and other biosecurity issues, and reduction of global catastrophic biological risks (GCBRs). GCBRs are those events in which biological agents—whether naturally emerging or reemerging, deliberately created and released, or laboratory engineered and escaped—could lead to sudden, extraordinary, widespread disaster beyond the collective capability of national and international governments and the private sector to control.¹ If unchecked, GCBRs could lead to great suffering, loss of life, and sustained damage to national governments, international relationships, economies, societal stability, or global security.

On April 8, 2022, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security at the Bloomberg School of Public Health convened a virtual, not-for-attribution meeting to solicit expert input on the US Department of Defense’s (DoD) first Biodefense Posture Review (BPR). US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III called for a comprehensive BPR in a November 2021 memo concerning the DoD’s biodefense vision. In the memo, Secretary Austin points out the critical roles DoD played in the COVID-19 response, both within the Department and as part of the broader whole-of-government response. After-action reviews of these vital contributions highlighted areas for improvement in DoD’s preparedness and response. Therefore, Secretary Austin directed a whole-of-department review to efficiently and robustly assess the DoD’s capabilities and modernize its strategies for biodefense.

On February 8 and 9, 2022, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security co-hosted a virtual dialogue session with the Regional Centre for Biotechnology of the Department of Biotechnology in the Indian Ministry of Science and Technology. The meeting focused on successes, challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned in the COVID-19 responses in India and the United States, and how COVID-19 responses can continue while also preparing for future health security crises.

The dialogue focused on COVID-19 developments that occurred since the last meeting in January 2021. Discussions centered around national response efforts, mass vaccination, surveillance approaches, causes and biosecurity implications of COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation, synthetic biological risks, global biosecurity governance, and the need for future collaboration among countries and within the scientific community.

The meeting convened senior thought leaders, scientists, public health practitioners, and medical experts from the United States and India. In accordance with the dialogue format, participants offered insights based on personal expertise and did not represent the government of either country in an official capacity.

On December 14 and 16, 2021, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security held a second virtual meeting of the Southeast Asia Strategic Multilateral Biosecurity Dialogue. The ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, including health risks as well as quarantine requirements and other travel restrictions, necessitated hosting the meeting virtually. Additionally, many of our dialogue participants play important roles in their country’s COVID-19 response, which makes it difficult for them to take time away from work for travel. In order to maintain the relationships that are so critical to the success of this dialogue and to share lessons from national-level COVID-19 response activities, we held a second virtual meeting, which built on the topics and challenges discussed in our previous meeting in February 2021.¹

As of September 2021, mortality in the United States due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus had exceeded the death toll from the 1918 influenza pandemic. COVID-19 was the ultimate test of healthcare and public health capacity and capability across the United States. From its acute onset and throughout its extended duration, the COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed hospitals, disrupted businesses, and caused lasting economic harm. It has also illuminated and exploited major vulnerabilities within the US healthcare and public health systems. The impact of the pandemic on hospitals, and to a lesser extent on public health departments, has been explored elsewhere, but relatively little has been written about the impact on primary care services. Operating largely in silos and chronically underfunded disciplines, primary care providers and public health practitioners in the United States have struggled to respond to the numerous waves of the pandemic, which have caused high levels of morbidity and mortality and jeopardized health systems in communities across the country, especially those that are most vulnerable. It is crucial that the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic must be shared.

Masks and respirators have played an essential role in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic for both healthcare workers and the public. However, the masks and respirators that both healthcare workers and the public have needed to rely upon leave much to be desired. Despite drawbacks in terms of comfort and fit, the ubiquitous disposable masks and disposable N95 respirators used by the vast majority of healthcare workers have not appreciably improved since the mid-1990s. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the public has been advised to wear masks as well. Masks have long been known to be effective means of “source control” (ie, reducing transmission of respiratory droplets from the wearer to others). More recently evidence has accumulated that properly constructed and worn masks as well as respirators afford a limited but not inconsequential degree of protection to the wearer as well. Existing masks and respirators run the gamut in terms of effectiveness and wearability. In a future large-scale outbreak or pandemic, it is possible to increase the protection of healthcare workers and the public from infection through more efficient, well-fitting, and comfortable masks. The design and manufacture of better masks and respirators are possible by harnessing emerging technologies, the innovative research and development spirit evidenced since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the availability of resources to support technological innovation.

On February 10 and 11, 2021, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted a virtual meeting of the Southeast Asia Strategic Multilateral Biosecurity Dialogue. Due to health risks stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic as well as associated restrictions and protective measures implemented around the world, the dialogue meeting originally scheduled to be held in Cebu, Philippines, during 2020 was postponed. To continue the productive dialogue between the participating countries, a virtual meeting was held to specifically address challenges and lessons from the countries’ experiences with COVID-19.

Memish and colleagues,¹in their response to our Comment,² perceive conflict between the current best-practice risk management advice on physical distancing and the scientific evaluation of cancelling or continuing mass gathering events during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although we have already acknowledged the need to balance these two considerations in order to maintain public understanding and trust, we do not accept that conflict is inevitable as our approach requires all mass gatherings to be considered in context, including the prevailing advice on physical distancing and movement restrictions. An open and transparent process to explicitly consider the risks of a mass gathering can, in fact, promote public confidence in the decision.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that health-related misinformation and disinformation can dangerously undermine the response to a public health crisis. Contradictory messaging and active subversion have reduced trust in public health responders, increased belief in false medical cures, and politicized public health measures aimed at curbing transmission of the disease. Setbacks in the COVID-19 response have highlighted that health-related misinformation or disinformation can lead to more infections, deaths, disruption, and disorganization of the effort. The public health response and communication environment in the United States have been disrupted by significant distrust in government, exacerbated by confusing and conflicting messages from leaders. As a result, information voids have developed, easily filled by false or misleading information and directly targeted by perpetrators of disinformation. Taken together, the spread and consequence of public health misinformation and disinformation can lead to a range of outcomes that have national security implications and require effective response.

On January 26 and 27, 2021, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security hosted a virtual dialogue discussion, focused on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) responses in India and the United States. The session explored lessons learned thus far and the path forward for both nations in responding to the pandemic. The meeting was held in collaboration with the Regional Centre for Biotechnology of the Department of Biotechnology in the Indian Ministry of Science and Technology.

Among the most pressing issues in preparing for the global response to a pandemic are the design, development, manufacture, and dissemination of vaccines. In 2018 and 2019, we conducted 48 interviews with prominent leaders in public health, pandemic preparedness, vaccine design, and vaccine manufacturing about how they would respond to a sudden, urgent need to manufacture 2 billion or more doses of vaccine. Little did we know that this scenario would become a dire global challenge a few months later with the onset of COVID-19. The response to this pandemic has shown that when leading vaccine manufacturers are fully engaged in a global response, it might be possible for them to manufacture substantial doses of vaccine on timelines faster than previously envisioned. It is now hoped that hundreds of millions of doses of vaccine will start to be produced sometime in the end of 2020 or the start of 2021, and that billions of doses of vaccine could be produced in the months that follow. Whether these timelines can be met or not, it is crucial now, while the world is fully attuned to the terrible consequences of pandemics, to begin preparing the system of global manufacturing for future pandemics. The following insights and recommendations are taken from our interviews with leading experts and our own analysis.