80 questions for UK biological security Kemp, L., Aldridge, D. C., Booy, O., Bower, H., Browne, D., Burgmann, M., Burt, A., Cunningham, A. A., Dando, M., Dick, J. T. A., Dye, C., Evans, S. W., Gallardo, B., Godfray, C. H. J., Goodfellow, I., Gubbins, S., Holt, L. A., Jones, K. E., Kandil, H., ... Sutherland, W. J. (2021). 80 questions for UK biological security. PLoS ONE, 16(1 ), [e0241190]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241190 Published in: PLoS ONE Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights Copyright 2021 the authors. This is an open access article published under a Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the author and source are cited. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:02. Oct. 2021 PLOS ONE RESEARCH ARTICLE 80 questions for UK biological security 1,2 1,3 4,5 6 1,2 Luke KempID , David C. Aldridge , Olaf Booy , Hilary BowerID , Des Browne , Mark Burgmann7, Austin Burt8, Andrew A. Cunningham9, Malcolm Dando10, Jaimie T. A. Dick11, Christopher Dye12, Sam Weiss Evans1,2,13, Belinda Gallardo1,3, H. Charles 12 14 15 1,2 8,16 J. Godfray , Ian Goodfellow , Simon GubbinsID , Lauren A. Holt , Kate E. Jones , Hazem Kandil1, Phillip Martin1,3, Mark McCaughan17, CaitrõÂona McLeish18, 19 20 1,2 21 Thomas Meany , Kathryn Millett , Sean S. OÂ hEÂ igeartaigh , Nicola J. PatronID , 1,2 22 1,2 23 Catherine Rhodes , Helen E. Roy , Gorm ShackelfordID , Derek Smith , 24 20 1,2 25 Nicola SpenceID , Helene Steiner , Lalitha S. SundaramID , Silja Voeneky , John 26 27 10 28 R. Walker , Harry WatkinsID , Simon WhitbyID , James Wood , William 1,3 a1111111111 J. SutherlandID * a1111111111 1 Biosecurity Research Initiative at St Catharine's (BioRISC), St Catharine's College, University of a1111111111 Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2 Centre for the Study of Existential Risk (CSER), University of a1111111111 Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 3 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, a1111111111 United Kingdom, 4 Great Britain Non-native Species Secretariat, Sand Hutton, Animal and Plant Health Agency, York, United Kingdom, 5 Centre for Wildlife Management, School of Biology, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, United Kingdom, 6 UK Public Health Rapid Support Team, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom, 7 Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, 8 UK Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom, 9 Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, United Kingdom, 10 Division OPEN ACCESS of Peace Studies and International Development, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom, 11 Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Citation: Kemp L, Aldridge DC, Booy O, Bower H, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom, 12 Oxford Martin School and Department of Zoology, Oxford University, Browne D, Burgmann M, et al. (2021) 80 questions Oxford, United Kingdom, 13 Program on Science, Technology, and Society, Tufts University, Medford, for UK biological security. PLoS ONE 16(1): Massachusetts, United States of America, 14 Department of Pathology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University e0241190. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 15 The Pirbright Institute, Pirbright, Surrey, United Kingdom, pone.0241190 16 Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, United Kingdom, 17 Marine and Fisheries Division, Department of Editor: Igor Linkov, US Army Engineer Research Agriculture and Rural Affairs Northern Ireland, Downpatrick, United Kingdom, 18 SPRU, University of and Development Center, UNITED STATES Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, United Kingdom, 19 OpenCell, London, United Kingdom, 20 Biosecure Ltd, Received: January 13, 2020 Bourton-on-the-Water, United Kingdom, 21 Earlham Institute, Norwich, United Kingdom, 22 Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Crowmarsh Gifford, United Kingdom, 23 Centre for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Accepted: October 9, 2020 Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 24 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), London, United Kingdom, 25 Department for Public International Law, Comparative Published: January 6, 2021 Law, and Ethics of Law, Law Faculty, Freiburg University, Freiburg, Germany, 26 Arms Control and Disarmament Research Unit, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London, United Kingdom, 27 Department Copyright: © 2021 Kemp et al. This is an open of Landscape, Arts Tower, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom, 28 Department of Veterinary access article distributed under the terms of the Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and * [email protected] reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: The initial questions Abstract provided by expert participants (the minimal data set) is provided in Appendix II. Further details on Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological the contributors, including who they consulted to generate the questions, is provided in Appendix I. security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, Funding: The David and Claudia Harding Foundation for provided funding for the BioRISC volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy project. Arcadia provided support in the form of (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the salaries for authors WS. and CR. TM and HS are breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to affiliated with Opencell. KM is affiliated with effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. Biosecure Ltd. The funders did not have any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241190 January 6, 2021 1 / 19 PLOS ONE 80 questions for UK biological security decision to publish, or preparation of the We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collabora- articulated in the `author contributions' section." tively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and Competing interests: Authors TM and HS are the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions affiliated with Opencell. KM is affiliated with Biosecure Ltd. Arcadia provided support in the into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including form of salaries for authors WS and CR. There are pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials no patents, products in development or marketed and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process products to declare. This does not alter our and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the imple- mentation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues. Introduction Activities to ensure biological security as a means to protect people, economic interests and the environment, including native biodiversity, are of critical importance to the United King- dom (UK). The