.jpg)
Opinion: The ‘Risky Research Review Act’ would do more harm than good
In an era of rapid scientific and technological advances when politicians and scientists are struggling to find the right balance between innovation and safety, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has introduced the Risky Research Review Act (S. 4667) in an effort to navigate this treacherous terrain. But instead of providing clarity and security, this legislation threatens to cast a shadow over the future of life sciences research and slow it down.
The act proposes creating a Life Sciences Research Security Board to review federally funded life sciences research involving “high-risk” experiments and to decide if such research should be funded. But the bill’s definition of high-risk life sciences research is overly broad and ambiguous, and duplicative of existing regulations covering agents of bioterrorism concern and dual-use research. It goes beyond a list of potential pandemic pathogens and experiments to enhance pathogenic characteristics (so-called gain-of-function research), and includes pathogen collection and surveillance. The act would also cover — and it’s hard to get any broader than this — research that “could pose a threat to public health, safety, or national security.”
Read Original Article: Opinion: The ‘Risky Research Review Act’ would do more harm than good »
