Proceedings of a Workshop

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-99432-3
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/29174

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; https://nap.nationalacademies.org.

The manufacturer’s authorized representative in the European Union for product safety is Authorised Rep Compliance Ltd., Ground Floor, 71 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin D02 P593 Ireland; www.arccompliance.com.

Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Disseminating In Silico and Computational Biological Research: Navigating Benefits and Risks: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/29174.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR THE WORKSHOP ON NAVIGATING THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF PUBLISHING STUDIES OF IN SILICO MODELING AND COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES OF BIOLOGICAL AGENTS AND ORGANISMS

ALEX JOHN LONDON (Co-Chair), Carnegie Mellon University

VALDA VINSON (Co-Chair), Science Journals and American Association for the Advancement of Science

SIMONE BIANCO, Altos Labs Institute of Computation

SARAH CARTER, Science Policy Consulting LLC

HÉCTOR GARCÍA MARTÍN, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

FEILIM MAC GABHANN, PLOS Computational Biology and Johns Hopkins University

JASPREET PANNU, Stanford University and Johns Hopkins University

AMINA A. QUTUB, The University of Texas at San Antonio

RICHARD SEVER, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Staff

AUDREY THÉVENON, Senior Program Officer, Board on Life Sciences

KAVITA BERGER, Director, Board on Life Sciences

KATHERINE BOWMAN, Senior Program Officer, Board on Health Sciences Policy

JESSICA DE MOUY, Research Associate, Board on Life Sciences

DASIA MCKOY, Senior Program Assistant, Board on Life Sciences (as of January 2025)

CHRISTL SAUNDERS, Program Coordinator, Board on Life Sciences

NAM VU, Senior Program Assistant, Board on Life Sciences (until January 2025)

Consultants

ANNE FRANCES JOHNSON, Creative Science Writing, LLC

KATHLEEN PIERCE, Creative Science Writing, LLC

This page intentionally left blank.

Reviewers

This Proceedings of a Workshop was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published proceedings as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this proceedings:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse content of the proceedings nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by PAUL D. THOMAS, University of Southern California. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the rapporteurs and the National Academies.

This page intentionally left blank.

Contents

OVERVIEW

Trade-Offs Between Openness and Control

Informing Risk Assessment Frameworks

A Tiered and Layered Approach to Managing Risks

Suggestions for Facilitating the Implementation of Risk Mitigation Strategies

1 CONTEXT ON IN SILICO RESEARCH AND BIOSECURITY

State of Knowledge on the Benefits and Biosecurity Risks of In Silico Biological Research

Lessons from Established Governance

Lessons from Other Domains

2 CHALLENGES RELATED TO THE DISSEMINATION OF BIOLOGICAL STUDY RESULTS, MODELS, AND TOOLS

Approachs to Responsible Dissemination

Challenges and Examples of Needs to Effectively Safeguard Benefits and Promote Advances

Participant Reflections

3 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Options for Facilitating Responsible Dissemination

Implementation Opportunities and Pitfalls for Proposed Strategies

REFERENCES

APPENDIXES

A STATEMENT OF TASK

B WORKSHOP AGENDA

C WORKSHOP PLANNING COMMITTEE BIOGRAPHIES

Box and Figures

BOX

1 Key Points Highlighted by Individual Participants

FIGURES

1 List of example stakeholders identified by participants throughout the workshop

2a Collection of example dissemination outputs of in silico and computational biology research mentioned by speakers, moderators, and workshop attendees

2b Collection of example dissemination outlets of in silico and computational biology research mentioned by speakers, moderators, and workshop attendees

3 Framing for the workshop’s areas of focus

4 Impact of AI-enabled biological tools across digital and physical tasks in synthetic biology

5 Four categories of global risk dynamics

6 Managed access to biodesign tools: A schematic representation of the spectrum of access and the range of management options relevant to software guardrails

7 Conceptual illustration of a spectrum of in silico research in terms of magnitude of concern and the obligations for responsible management and mitigation