최신자료
Living Framework and Guidelines for Information Disclosure in Biosecurity
- The RAND Center on AI, Security, and Technology (RAND CAST) has developed a working paper to address the growing risks posed by biosecurity information hazards-research findings that, while scientifically valuable, could be misused to cause significant harm. Despite these risks, many institutions lack a systematic and operational approach to decide whether such information should be disclosed publicly. This working paper describes a living framework to evaluate and manage the risks associated with biosecurity information disclosures.
- At the core of the framework is a two-part, tiered assessment system that helps scientists, funders, and research managers identify and evaluate potential information hazards before, during, and after a research project. To make this process actionable, the framework uses a five-point scale based on probability and impact, adapted from U.S. intelligence community standards. This scoring system feeds into a five-by-five risk matrix that places research into one of four categories: no risk, some risk, major risk, or critical risk. Each category corresponds to a specific set of recommendations.
- Governance is central to the success of this approach. Consequently, the working paper establishes clear roles for principal investigators (PIs) and organizational leadership, with an independent review entity to ensure oversight and accountability at each step, and consistency in how judgments are made. Drawing on lessons from past biosecurity incidents, ethical debates, and regulatory gaps, the framework aims to fill a critical void in how the scientific community handles research that is both valuable and dangerous.
- The working paper also addresses the broader challenge of balancing scientific openness with security concerns. Striking this balance requires mitigation actions that are context-sensitive, not one-size-fits-all.
- At the core of the framework is a two-part, tiered assessment system that helps scientists, funders, and research managers identify and evaluate potential information hazards before, during, and after a research project. To make this process actionable, the framework uses a five-point scale based on probability and impact, adapted from U.S. intelligence community standards. This scoring system feeds into a five-by-five risk matrix that places research into one of four categories: no risk, some risk, major risk, or critical risk. Each category corresponds to a specific set of recommendations.
- Governance is central to the success of this approach. Consequently, the working paper establishes clear roles for principal investigators (PIs) and organizational leadership, with an independent review entity to ensure oversight and accountability at each step, and consistency in how judgments are made. Drawing on lessons from past biosecurity incidents, ethical debates, and regulatory gaps, the framework aims to fill a critical void in how the scientific community handles research that is both valuable and dangerous.
- The working paper also addresses the broader challenge of balancing scientific openness with security concerns. Striking this balance requires mitigation actions that are context-sensitive, not one-size-fits-all.
많이 본 자료
![[2026.06] 원·달러 환율](/userdata/main/incContent/sideLink/28/aaahkMSP2oK2fgXjARu9z20260805144529unfke.jpg)
