GRF · Health and Biosecurity Governance
Biological risk governance
Research on pathogens advances vaccines and diagnostics and can also create risks through accidents, theft or misuse. Biological risk governance covers laboratory biosafety, biosecurity, oversight of dual-use research, control of synthetic DNA and the Biological Weapons Convention. This page sets out how biological risk governance works and where it has gaps, the records that show it, and who decides.
Biological risk governance in seven parts.
- 01The questionBiological risk governance: how the risk develops
- 02IndicatorsWhat is measured, and how well
- 03SourcesWhere the evidence comes from
- 04DecisionsWho decides, and what the evidence serves
- 05Core questionsWhat experts ask
- 06MechanismsMechanisms and drivers
- 07Methods and dataHow it is studied, and where the methods stop
Biological risk governance: how the risk develops.
Safety, reporting and oversight. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Containment depends on practice
Biosafety levels set facility and procedural requirements, but most incidents trace to human error, maintenance lapses and training gaps. Practice and culture matter as much as design.
Oversight covers some research
Rules on dual-use research often cover a list of agents or funding sources. Work outside those lists, or privately funded, can fall outside review.
Tools spread faster than rules
Cheaper gene synthesis, benchtop equipment and AI design tools lower barriers. Screening of DNA orders and customer verification are largely voluntary in many countries.
The weapons ban lacks verification
The Biological Weapons Convention has no verification mechanism. Confidence-building measures are voluntary, and many states do not submit them.
People and hazards in Southern Africa.
Population density, night lights and flood water over Southern Africa, from NASA GIBS. Each layer carries its own date.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
People and hazards, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
People and hazards, framed on Southern Africa.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date. They are indicators, not assessments of any place.
Data: NASA GIBS · ASTER GDEM · Blue Marble · © OpenStreetMap contributors · Natural Earth · NASA EONET · U.S. Geological Survey · NOAA GOES-East ABI GeoColorSources and licences
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University. 2018. Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Population Density, Revision 11. NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). Licensed under CC BY 4.0. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). doi:10.7927/H49C6VHW. CC BY 4.0
- VIIRS Black Marble night-time lights, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; distributed by the NASA Level-1 and Atmosphere Archive and Distribution System (LAADS DAAC); imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- VIIRS near-real-time products (flood, land surface temperature, snow cover, corrected reflectance), NASA LANCE; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- NASA Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS), VIIRS 375 m active fire product, NASA LANCE; vector tiles via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- MODIS land products (vegetation indices, gross primary production, land cover), NASA LP DAAC and LANCE; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- ASTER GDEM is a product of METI and NASA (ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003, NASA LP DAAC); imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). Cite as: NASA/METI/AIST/Japan Spacesystems and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team (2019). ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003. doi:10.5067/ASTER/ASTGTM.003. NASA open data
- Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com. Public domain
- © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL), via NASA GIBS (coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). ODbL
- Blue Marble, NASA Earth Observatory; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- Context on the globe and flat map: coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names from NASA GIBS reference layers (OpenStreetMap data, ODbL, © OpenStreetMap contributors); Blue Marble imagery as an optional base; 3D terrain and the elevation read-out from the ASTER GDEM elevation colour index (5 m to 200 m classes, exaggerated for legibility). Boundaries are drawn as published and imply no position on any territory.
- Live events: NASA Earth Observatory Natural Event Tracker (EONET); events are indicative and keep their original source links.
- Live: NASA EONET Events are indicative, not authority warnings.
- Live: U.S. Geological Survey Events are indicative, not authority warnings.
- Live: NOAA GOES-East ABI GeoColor (CIRA). We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- NASA GIBS: We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- Optional layers (5 sources in the layer list: live, forecast, observed and context) print their provider credit on the map and here when switched on; forecasts are model output and derived indices are estimates.
Layers and dates
- Population density, 2020: Population: CIESIN, Columbia University, Gridded Population of the World v4.11 (2018), NASA SEDAC, CC BY 4.0 · static
- Night-time lights, daily: VIIRS Black Marble (VNP46A2), NASA LAADS DAAC · 12 Oct 2026
- Flood water, 3-day composite: VIIRS Global Flood Product, NASA LANCE · 14 Oct 2026
- Active fires and thermal anomalies: VIIRS NOAA-20 375 m (FIRMS), NASA LANCE FIRMS · 13 Oct 2026
- True colour: VIIRS NOAA-20 corrected reflectance, NASA LANCE · 13 Oct 2026
- Land cover type (IGBP), yearly: MODIS Terra and Aqua land cover (MCD12Q1), NASA LP DAAC · 2024
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum containment laboratories | count by country | periodic | Published mapping studies | ESTIMATED |
| National biosafety and biosecurity legislation | yes or no, by element | on change | Legislation databases | Published statistics |
| Confidence-building measure submissions under the BWC | count of states | annual | BWC Implementation Support Unit | Published statistics |
| Laboratory incidents reported | count by type | annual | National regulator records | REPORTED |
| Gene synthesis providers screening orders | count of providers | periodic | Industry consortium records | DECLARED |
| Dual-use research reviews conducted | count | annual | Institutional and national records | REPORTED |
IHR event governance desk.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
IHR event governance desk
Biological risk governance · National IHR focal point · Event EV-1737
Event handling
- Signaldetected
- Verifywith source
- AssessAnnex 2
- Notifywithin 24 h
- Respondmeasures
- Reviewafter action
Annex 2 questions
- Serious public health impact?
- Possibly
- Unusual or unexpected?
- Yes
- Risk of international spread?
- Assessing
- Risk of travel or trade restriction?
- Low
Core capacities
self-assessment score vs target
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| BWC confidence-building measures (public submissions) | State declarations on facilities, research and outbreaks | Public portions, UNODA terms |
| Global BioLabs report | Mapping of maximum containment laboratories and governance | Free to read, terms to check |
| WHO Laboratory Biosafety Manual | Risk-based biosafety guidance | Free, WHO terms |
| International Gene Synthesis Consortium harmonised screening protocol | Industry screening practice for synthetic DNA orders | Free to read, terms to check |
| National select agent programme reports | Registered entities, inspections and incidents | Public records, terms per agency |
Compare instruments: rules, incentives and information.
Three families of instruments side by side against the baseline, each with its own lag and adoption speed, under the coverage and compliance you set; effect sizes are teaching values to replace with evidence. Scenario: named assumptions about the future, not a forecast. The map on this page shows Southern Africa; the model itself is not tied to a place.
Controls
- Baseline trend of the outcome
- 2.0% a year
- Coverage of the instrument
- 70%
- Compliance
- 75%
- Effect size, against the teaching value
- 100%
- Years ahead
- 20 years
Readouts
- Largest reduction at the horizon
- Regulation
- Its reduction against the baseline
- 21%
Numbers, methods and sources
| Year | Baseline | Regulation | Economic incentive | Information and capacity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 100.0 | 99.5 | 98.8 | 99.1 |
| 1 | 102.0 | 101.2 | 100.1 | 99.8 |
| 2 | 104.0 | 102.5 | 101.1 | 99.9 |
| 3 | 106.1 | 103.5 | 101.6 | 100.0 |
| 4 | 108.2 | 103.7 | 101.8 | 100.7 |
| 5 | 110.4 | 103.2 | 101.7 | 102.1 |
| 6 | 112.6 | 102.0 | 101.6 | 103.9 |
| 7 | 114.9 | 100.4 | 101.6 | 105.9 |
| 8 | 117.2 | 99.2 | 102.1 | 108.0 |
| 9 | 119.5 | 98.6 | 102.9 | 110.1 |
| 10 | 121.9 | 98.9 | 104.2 | 112.3 |
| 11 | 124.3 | 99.7 | 105.7 | 114.5 |
| 12 | 126.8 | 101.1 | 107.4 | 116.8 |
| 13 | 129.4 | 102.7 | 109.4 | 119.2 |
| 14 | 131.9 | 104.5 | 111.4 | 121.6 |
| 15 | 134.6 | 106.5 | 113.5 | 124.0 |
| 16 | 137.3 | 108.5 | 115.7 | 126.5 |
| 17 | 140.0 | 110.7 | 118.0 | 129.0 |
| 18 | 142.8 | 112.9 | 120.4 | 131.6 |
| 19 | 145.7 | 115.1 | 122.8 | 134.2 |
| 20 | 148.6 | 117.4 | 125.2 | 136.9 |
Methods
- Tools of government Hood (1983), The Tools of Government, Macmillan
- Carrots, sticks and sermons Bemelmans-Videc, Rist and Vedung (1998), Transaction
- Diffusion of innovations Rogers (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press
- Uncertainty fan (parameter Monte Carlo) Spiegelhalter, Pearson and Short (2011), Visualising uncertainty about the future, Science 333
- One-at-a-time sensitivity (tornado) Saltelli and others (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, Wiley
Data
The model runs on the teaching values set by the controls. To calibrate it for a place, read it against these admitted layers and series, which this page's map can draw:
- Borders Natural Earth
- Cities Natural Earth
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Health and Biosecurity Governance in Foundry
- Tested at Health and Biosecurity Governance in Universe
- Codified in Health and Biosecurity in Standards
- Published in Health and Biosecurity Governance in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Health and Society in Academy
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Health and Biosecurity Governance prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Legislatures and health or science ministries | What biosafety, biosecurity and dual-use research rules apply | Comparative laws and incident evidence |
| Research funders and institutions | Which research to approve and under what conditions | Review practice and risk assessment methods |
| Gene synthesis providers | How to screen orders and verify customers | Screening protocols and comparable practice |
| States Parties to the BWC | Whether to strengthen compliance and transparency measures | Confidence-building records and review conference outcomes |
Outputs this topic produces
- Comparative notes on dual-use research oversight
- Guide to biosafety levels and incident reporting
- Dialogue briefs on synthetic DNA screening and emerging tools
- Questions for states on BWC confidence-building
From mandate to evaluation, by pillar.
The steps an instrument takes from mandate to evaluation, each with the pillar that runs it, and the decisions that stay with the authority. Teaching model with stated illustrative values, not a prediction. The map on this page shows Southern Africa; the model itself is not tied to a place.
- Mandate and problem framing Competent authority (outside the programme)
A competent authority frames the problem and the mandate under its own rules. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Evidence and system model Foundry
The system is modelled with its feedbacks, data and stated limits. OECD (2014), principle 2 - Options appraised with scenarios Foundry
Instruments are compared under scenarios, with uncertainty shown. Hood (1983) - Exercise with stakeholders Universe
The options are tested in an exercise with those who would implement and bear them. OECD (2014), principle 3 - Standard or guidance drafted Nexus Standards
What works is codified as a standard or guidance, open to comment. Nexus Standards process - Decision by the authority Competent authority (outside the programme)
The authority decides, outside the programme, with the evidence on record. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009) - Capacity and training Risk Academy
Those who implement are trained on the decided instrument and its data. Sendai Framework (2015), priority 2 - Monitoring and public report Reports
Indicators are published with sources, limits and corrections. OECD (2014), principle 5 - Evaluation and revision Nexus Standards
Results return to the standard and the model: the cycle closes. Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009)
Methods
- Policy cycle Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009), Studying Public Policy, Oxford University Press
- Governance of critical risks OECD (2014), Recommendation of the Council on the Governance of Critical Risks
- Layered drawing of directed graphs Sugiyama, Tagawa and Toda (1981), IEEE SMC 11
Across the six pillars, led by Nexus Consortium
- Experiments Labs
- Built in Health and Biosecurity Governance in Foundry
- Tested at Health and Biosecurity Governance in Universe
- Codified in Health and Biosecurity in Standards
- Published in Health and Biosecurity Governance in Reports
- Taught in Faculty of Health and Society in Academy
What experts ask.
The questions concern oversight that keeps pace with science.
- Which laboratories work with dangerous pathogens, and who oversees them?
- How is research of concern identified and reviewed before it begins?
- Are laboratory incidents reported, investigated and learned from?
- How do oversight systems cover new technologies, such as synthetic biology and AI-enabled design?
- How are national measures connected to international norms and treaties?
Exercise a cascade in biological risk governance with the people who decide.
Assembled from the Nexus Standards area profile Health security and One Health: the hazards it names, the systems and communities that carry the loss, the controls and institutions that dampen it and the data that observe it. Pick an initiating event and step through the cascade to see where mandates meet and which decisions fall to whom. The Map view places the run on an example geography with open data. Every weight is a stated assumption. An exercise for dialogue, not a forecast, an assessment or a position. To model a place of your own choosing, open the full System Builder.
Hazards
- Antimicrobial resistance
- Tuberculosis surge (set off downstream)
- Typhoid and paratyphoid fever (set off downstream)
- Health-system overload (set off downstream)
Systems and couplings
- Health security and One Health
- Biological hazard standards Mechanism
- Biodiversity and nature risk standards Common driver
- Food and agriculture risk standards Mechanism
- Global and systemic risk Cascade
Controls
NS-0Constitution and principlesNS-3Risk record UNIs (grammar, legacy crosswalk, allocation authority)NS-9Contextual UNIs (deployments, instances, programme instances)NS-10Policies and clauses (machine-readable obligations: definition, binding, evaluation and enforcement)NS-11Verification and monitoring (evidence, attestations, zero-trust conformance observation)NRS-H83Hazard family: Health system capacity failure (NHS-1 health.system)NRS-H42Hazard family: Rare and persistent human infections (NHS-1 health.other-human)NRS-H41Hazard family: Animal-to-human spillover (NHS-1 health.zoonotic)NRS-H43Hazard family: Livestock and aquaculture epizootics (NHS-1 health.animal-health)NRS-D3Humanitarian response and resilient recoveryNRS-H46Hazard family: Environmental and product harm to people (NHS-1 health.harm)
Observation
- WHO Disease Outbreak News (listed for reference)
- WAHIS animal health events (listed for reference)
- WorldPop gridded population (listed for reference)
- International Health Regulations capacity and health emergency preparedness
- Percentage of bloodstream infections due to selected antimicrobial-resistant organisms
Example geography
- West Africa: 59 hexagonal cells
- Night lights tonight, outages (VIIRS Day/Night Band), NASA GIBS
- Surface water through cloud, 30 m (OPERA DSWx-S1 radar), NASA GIBS
- Rain rate, last half hour (IMERG), NASA GIBS
Mechanisms and drivers.
Biosafety concerns preventing accidental exposure and release; biosecurity concerns preventing theft, misuse or deliberate harm. Both depend on facilities, training, culture and oversight. Laboratory capacity has expanded globally, and advances in the life sciences have lowered some technical barriers, which places more weight on governance.
Oversight is often fragmented between funders, institutions, national regulators and security agencies. Incident reporting is frequently voluntary or confidential, which limits learning. Internationally, the prohibition of biological weapons is long established, but verification is limited, and norms for dual-use research continue to develop.
Why now: advances in biotechnology and AI-assisted design have renewed attention to laboratory biosafety and dual-use research oversight, and national frameworks differ widely. The platform is designed to compare oversight arrangements and convene the institutions responsible, without publishing hazardous detail.
How biological risk governance is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Policy instrument matrix
The kinds of instrument available on biological risk governance, by level of government and cooperation.
| Instrument type | Local | National | Regional | Global |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regulatory | Zoning, building codes | Laws, standards, licensing | Harmonised rules | Conventions and treaties |
| Economic | Local levies, grants | Budget lines, taxes, insurance schemes | Risk pools, regional funds | Financing mechanisms |
| Information | Local warnings | Disclosure, early warning, statistics | Data sharing arrangements | Global monitoring and reporting |
| Institutional | Local committees | Lead agencies, coordination councils | Regional bodies and secretariats | Multilateral mandates |
| Cooperative | Community agreements | Partnership compacts | Memoranda and joint programmes | Agreements and joint commitments |
How it is studied, and where the methods stop.
| Method or data | What it shows | Limits |
|---|---|---|
| Comparative analysis of oversight systems | How countries govern high-consequence research | Many systems are not publicly documented |
| Incident and near-miss analysis | Failure patterns in laboratories | Under-reporting limits evidence |
| Policy analysis of international regimes | Obligations and gaps | Verification and compliance data are limited |
| Expert elicitation | Views on emerging risks | Judgement, not measurement |
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Molecular and life sciencesCountermeasure development pathways · Biosafety risk assessmentApplied here
- 02Policy, institutional and decision scienceComparing emergency health law · Tracing review recommendations · Mapping cooperationApplied here
- 03Epidemiology and public health scienceEarly outbreak parameters · Equity in outcomes · Evaluating measuresApplied here
Questions and answers.
What is dual-use research of concern?
What is the difference between biosafety and biosecurity?
Does the Biological Weapons Convention have inspections?
Why is incident reporting important?
Who oversees new biotechnologies that fall outside existing rules?
Does the platform publish technical details about pathogens?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.