Dataset Information

80 questions for UK biological security.

ABSTRACT: Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

SUBMITTER: Kemp L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7787535 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

80 questions for UK biological security.

Kemp Luke L Aldridge David C DC Booy Olaf O Bower Hilary H Browne Des D Burgmann Mark M Burt Austin A Cunningham Andrew A AA Dando Malcolm M Dick Jaimie T A JTA Dye Christopher C Weiss Evans Sam S Gallardo Belinda B Godfray H Charles J HCJ Goodfellow Ian I Gubbins Simon S Holt Lauren A LA Jones Kate E KE Kandil Hazem H Martin Phillip P McCaughan Mark M McLeish Caitríona C Meany Thomas T Millett Kathryn K ÓhÉigeartaigh Sean S SS Patron Nicola J NJ Rhodes Catherine C Roy Helen E HE Shackelford Gorm G Smith Derek D Spence Nicola N Steiner Helene H Sundaram Lalitha S LS Voeneky Silja S Walker John R JR Watkins Harry H Whitby Simon S Wood James J Sutherland William J WJ

PloS one 20210106 1

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identify ...[more]

PMID: 33406134

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is a major world health problem with over 400,000 new cases diagnosed annually. Despite advances in surgery and chemo-radiotherapy, the 5 year survival has remained roughly constant at approximately 50% for several decades. The disease is characterized by both clinical and genetic heterogeneity, so elucidating the molecular basis of this heterogeneity would have significant clinical implications. It is well recognized that OSCCs from Asia that are associated with betel quid chewing are phenotypically distinct from those from the West that are predominantly caused by smoking/drinking, but the genetic basis of these differences are largely unknown. The aim of this study is to examine the most related genetic factors, carcinogenic related pathways, and molecular processes that might be responsible for the phenotypic heterogeneity of OSCC between UK and Sri Lankan population groups. Methods: We have compared the gene expression profiles of OSCCs and normal oral mucosal tissues from both Sri Lankan and UK individuals using Affymetrix gene expression arrays. Results: The gene expression profiles of UK and Sri Lankan OSCC are similar in many respects to other oral cancer expression profiles reported in the literature and were mainly similar to each other. However, genes involved in tumor invasion, metastasis and recurrence were more obviously associated with UK tumors as opposed to those from Sri Lanka. Interestingly, Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA) revealed a highly activated cell-mediated immune response in both Sri Lankan normal and tumor samples relative to UK cohorts, which may, in part, explain the less aggressive behavior of these betel quid-induced OSCCs. Conclusion: The development of OSCCs in both UK and Sri Lankan populations appears largely mediated by similar biological pathways despite the differences related to race, ethnicity, lifestyle, and/or exposure to environmental carcinogens. However, IPA revealed a highly activated M-bM-^@M-^\Cell-mediated Immune ResponseM-bM-^@M-^] in Sri Lankan normal and tumor samples relative to UK cohorts. It seems likely, therefore, that any future attempts to personalize treatment for OSCC patients will need to be different in Western and Asian countries to reflect differences in gene expression and the immune status of the patients. All biopsy specimens of OSCC and normal oral mucosa were harvested with appropriate ethical approval and informed consent of individual patients (LREC 0769). Identical protocols for tissue collection and processing were used in both countries. OSCC samples were obtained from sequential incident cases treated by a single consultant surgeon from 2001 to 2004 at University Hospital of Birmingham, NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK, and Kandy General Hospital, Kandy, Sri Lanka. A total of 21 UK and 27 Sri Lankan samples yielded RNA of sufficient quality and quantity for microarray analysis. In addition, 8 normal oral mucosa specimens (five samples from UK & three samples from Sri Lankan population) were also profiled. All normal samples were from non-smokers, who did not chew betel quid and did not consume in excess of the national recommended weekly gender allowance of alcohol. Normal samples were taken from individuals with no history of cancer and had no first degree relatives with a history of cancer.

Project description:BackgroundThe maintenance of standards is a problem for postgraduate medical examinations, particularly if they use norm-referencing as the sole method of standard setting. In each of its diets, the MRCP(UK) Part 1 Examination includes a number of marker questions, which are unchanged from their use in a previous diet. This paper describes two complementary studies of marker questions for 52 diets of the MRCP(UK) Part 1 Examination over the years 1985 to 2001 to assess whether standards have changed.MethodsStudy 1, which used routinely collected information on the performance of 4405 marker items, used a statistical method to assess changes in performance across diets. Study 2 compared performances of individual candidates on 28 individual marker items that were shared by the 1996/2 and 2001/3 diets.ResultsStudy 1 found evidence that candidate performance on the MRCP(UK) Part 1 Examination showed a gradual improvement over the period 1985 to 1997, which was followed by a sharp decline in performance until 2001. The 'dog-leg' in performance at 1997/3 was not an artefact of changed Examination Regulations, mix of UK and overseas candidates, or time from qualification until taking the Examination. Study 2 confirmed that performance in 2001/3 was significantly worse than in 1996/3, that the poorer performance was found in graduates of UK medical schools, and that candidates passing the Examination in 2001/3 performed less well than those passing in 1996/2.ConclusionThere has been a decline in the performance of graduates from UK medical schools taking the MRCP(UK) Part 1 examination. The reasons for this are not clear, but the finding has implications for medical education, and further studies are needed of performance in other postgraduate and undergraduate examinations. The use of norm-referencing as the sole method for setting the pass mark over this period meant that candidates passing the MRCP(UK) examination also had a lower standard. The MRCP(UK) Part 1 and Part 2 examinations now have their standard set by criterion-referencing.

Dataset Information

80 questions for UK biological security.

Publications

80 questions for UK biological security.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure