National Academy Views Biosecurity, Access to Information
A major new report from the National Research Council warns of future
biological threats and urges increased attention to mechanisms for
prevention, detection, mitigation and response to the destructive
use of biological agents.
But secrecy is not one of those mechanisms, the report says.
“In general, restrictive regulations and the imposition of
constraints on the flow of information are not likely to reduce the
risks that advances in the life sciences will be utilized with
malevolent intent in the future.”
“In fact, they will make it more difficult for civil society to
protect itself against such threats and ultimately are likely to
weaken national and human security.”
“The Committee endorses and affirms policies and practices that, to
the maximum extent possible, promote the free and open exchange of
information in the life sciences,” the report’s first recommendation
states.
The report contains some valuable extended discussion of information
policy in the context of biosecurity (esp. pp. 163-171).
See this January 31 news release for “Globalization, Biosecurity, and
the Future of the Life Sciences.”
It is in the interests of the United States to appropriately protect information that needs to be protected while maintaining our participation in new discoveries to maintain our competitive advantage.
The question is not whether the capital exists (it does!), nor whether energy solutions are available (they are!), but whether we can align energy finance quickly enough to channel the right types of capital where and when it’s needed most.
Our analysis of federal AI governance across administrations shows that divergent compliance procedures and uneven institutional capacity challenge the government’s ability to deploy AI in ways that uphold public trust.
From California to New Jersey, wildfires are taking a toll—costing the United States up to $424 billion annually and displacing tens of thousands of people. Congress needs solutions.