4.2 Article

Motivating Proactive Biorisk Management

Journal

HEALTH SECURITY
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 46-60

Publisher

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/hs.2022.0101

Keywords

Biorisk management; Biosafety; Biosecurity; Dual-use science; Bioethics; Psychological impacts

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Scholars and practitioners emphasize the importance of life scientists' proactive role in biosafety and biosecurity. However, existing efforts mainly focus on training technical skills without considering life scientists' motivation. This article argues that promoting proactive biorisk management should pay more attention to life scientists' motivation, and provides examples and strategies for interventions to enhance motivation.
Scholars and practitioners of biosafety and biosecurity (collectively, biorisk management or BRM) have argued that life scientists should play a more proactive role in monitoring their work for potential risks, mitigating harm, and seeking help as necessary. However, most efforts to promote proactive BRM have focused on training life scientists in technical skills and have largely ignored the extent to which life scientists wish to use them (ie, their motivation). In this article, we argue that efforts to promote proactive BRM would benefit from a greater focus on life scientists' motivation. We review relevant literature on life scientists' motivation to practice BRM, offer examples of successful interventions from adjacent fields, and outline ideas for possible interventions to promote proactive BRM, along with strategies for iterative development, testing, and scaling.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available