International Cooperation to Reduce Global Threats – serie

Early detection is essential to the control of emerging, reemerging, and novel infectious diseases, whether naturally occurring or intentionally introduced. Containing the spread of such diseases in a profoundly interconnected world requires active vigilance for signs of an outbreak, rapid recognition of its presence, and diagnosis of its microbial cause, in addition to strategies and resources for an appropriate and efficient response. Although these actions are often viewed in terms of human public health, they also challenge the plant and animal health communities. Surveillance, defined as "the continual scrutiny of all aspects of occurrence and spread of a disease that are pertinent to effective control", involves the "systematic collection, analysis, interpretation, and dissemination of health data." Disease detection and diagnosis is the act of discovering a novel, emerging, or reemerging disease or disease event and identifying its cause. Diagnosis is "the cornerstone of effective disease control and prevention efforts, including surveillance."Disease surveillance and detection relies heavily on the astute individual: the clinician, veterinarian, plant pathologist, farmer, livestock manager, or agricultural extension agent who notices something unusual, atypical, or suspicious and brings this discovery in a timely way to the attention of an appropriate representative of human public health, veterinary medicine, or agriculture. Most developed countries have the ability to detect and diagnose human, animal, and plant diseases. Global Infectious Disease Surveillance and Detection: Assessing the Challenges -- Finding Solutions, Workshop Summary is part of a 10 book series and summarizes the recommendations and presentations of the workshop.

This Congressionally-mandated report identifies areas for further cooperation with Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union under the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program of the Department of Defense in the specific area of prevention of proliferation of biological weapons. The report reviews relevant U.S. government programs, and particularly the CTR program, and identifies approaches for overcoming obstacles to cooperation and for increasing the long-term impact of the program. It recommends strong support for continuation of the CTR program.

The government's first Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs were created in 1991 to eliminate the former Soviet Union's nuclear, chemical, and other weapons and prevent their proliferation. The programs have accomplished a great deal: deactivating thousands of nuclear warheads, neutralizing chemical weapons, converting weapons facilities for peaceful use, and redirecting the work of former weapons scientists and engineers, among other efforts. Originally designed to deal with immediate post-Cold War challenges, the programs must be expanded to other regions and fundamentally redesigned as an active tool of foreign policy that can address contemporary threats from groups that are that are agile, networked, and adaptable. As requested by Congress, Global Security Engagement proposes how this goal can best be achieved. To meet the magnitude of new security challenges, particularly at the nexus of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, Global Security Engagement recommends a new, more flexible, and responsive model that will draw on a broader range of partners than current programs have.The White House, working across the Executive Branch and with Congress, must lead this effort.

During the first decade of the 21st century, the National Academies, working with a number of partner organizations in Iran, carried out a program of U.S.-Iran engagement in science, engineering, and health (herein referred to as science engagement). This book reviews important aspects of the science engagement program, including: (a) objectives of the program, (b) opportunities and constraints in developing the program, and (c) scientific and political impacts of the activities. Suggestions for future activities that draw on the conclusions and recommendations that have emerged from workshops and other types of interactions are set forth. Of course, the political turmoil within Iran and uncertainties as to the direction of U.S.-Iran government-to-government relations will undoubtedly complicate initiation and implementation of new science engagement activities in the near term. At the same time, many American and Iranian participants and important government officials in the United States and Iran have believed that science engagement can contribute to the evolution of an improved political environment for development of less adversarial relations between the two governments.

In the fall of 2010, the U.S. National Academies (consisting of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine) and the Russian Academy of Sciences (in cooperation with the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences) initiated a joint study of U.S.-Russian bilateral engagement in the biological sciences and biotechnology (hereinafter collectively referred to as bioengagement). The U.S. Department of State and the Russian Academy of Sciences provided support for the study. The academies established a joint committee of 12 leading scientists from the two countries to assess bioengagement activities since 1996 and to provide recommendations as to collaborative efforts in the near future. The Unique U.S.-Russian Relationship in Biological Science and Biotechnology: Recent Experience and Future Directions summarizes the principal conclusions and recommendations of the study.

Spurred on by new discoveries and rapid technological advances, the capacity for life science research is expanding across the globe-and with it comes concerns about the unintended impacts of research on the physical and biological environment, human well-being, or the deliberate misuse of knowledge, tools, and techniques to cause harm. This report describes efforts to address dual use issues by developing institutes around the world that will help life sciences faculty learn to teach about the responsible conduct of science. Based on the successful National Academies Summer Institute for Undergraduate Biology Education and on previous NRC reports on effective methods for teaching about dual use issues, the report's authoring committee designed a general framework for the faculty institutes and chose the Middle East-North Africa (MENA) region to test a prototype faculty institute.In September 2012, the first Institute was held in Aqaba, Jordan, bringing together 28 participants from Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Libya, and Yemen to engage with effective, evidence-based teaching methods, develop curricular materials for use in their own classrooms, and become community leaders on dual use and related topics. Developing Capacities for Teaching Responsible Science in the MENA Region: Refashioning Scientific Dialogue offers insights from the institute that will help in the design and implementation of future programs in the MENA region, and in other parts of the world.

The potential misuse of advances in life sciences research is raising concerns about national security threats. Dual Use Research of Concern in the Life Sciences: Current Issues and Controversies examines the U.S. strategy for reducing biosecurity risks in life sciences research and considers mechanisms that would allow researchers to manage the dissemination of the results of research while mitigating the potential for harm to national security.

In 2010, the National Research Council published the report U.S-Iran Engagement in Science, Engineering, and Medicine (2000-2009). The review of the program described in detail the National Academies' science, technology, and health cooperation program carried out jointly with partners in Iran (otherwise known as science-engagement). The purpose of this new publication is to document the history and details of the National Academies' program of science-engagement from 2010 through 2016, while providing a perspective in considering future science-engagement. A variety of cooperative activities, and particularly workshops that dominated science-engagement during that period, arehighlighted.

Continuing advances in science and technology offer the promise of providing tools to meet global challenges in health, agriculture, the environment, and economic development; some of the benefits are already being realized. However, such advances have the potential to challenge the oversight systems for responsible conduct of life sciences research with dual use potential – research that may have beneficial applications but that also could be misused to cause harm. Between June 10 and 13, 2018, more than 70 participants from 30 different countries and 5 international organizations took part in an international workshop, The Governance of Dual Use Research in the Life Sciences: Advancing Global Consensus on Research Oversight, to promote global dialogue and increased common understandings of the essential elements of governance for such research. Hosted by the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts in Zagreb, Croatia, the workshop was a collaboration among the InterAcademy Partnership, the Croatian Academy, the Croatian Society for Biosafety and Biosecurity, and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

On June 27-28, 2018, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) convened an international workshop in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on developing norms for the provision of laboratories in low-resource contexts. The U.S. Department of State's Biosecurity Engagement Program requested that the National Academies organize this workshop to engage an international group of organizations that provide funding for construction, upgrades, and maintenance of biological laboratories in countries without the means to build such labs themselves. Twenty-one people from 19 organizations participated. The intent was to advance the conversation about the identification and application of guiding principles and common norms for use by these organizations in their grants, partnerships, and aid. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.