Twentieth International Conference on Technology, Knowledge, and Society

Abstract

Research involving recombinant DNA technologies, synthetic nucleic acid molecules, or deadly pathogens has important social benefits, but such research also carries risks for researchers, the public health, and the environment. For the past fifty years in the United States, the biosafety regulatory strategy has relied heavily on local review bodies, now called Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBCs), to ensure researchers are exercising adequate biosafety and containment practices. Since its inception, this system has relied on professional self-regulation and the value of transparency and public communication to ensure safe biotech research practices while avoiding legislative oversight that may stifle socially beneficial development. As such, IBCs are required by US federal regulations to make certain information about biosafety review available to the public. We examine internal documents from a large, stratified sample of federally registered IBCs to determine the extent to which review bodies comply with federal requirements to record and make public certain information about their review and oversight of research involving potentially dangerous biotechnologies. Numerous failures to comply with the regulatory requirements regarding transparency and public communication about biotech research and review were observed. The importance of transparency in biosafety, emerging challenges for ensuring safe biotech research in an increasingly privatized oversight system, and some simple strategies for promoting biosafety and greater transparency in biotech research are discussed in light of these findings.