Global Catastrophic Biological Risks (GCBRs), such as pandemics or engineered pathogens, present serious threats to humanity. While awareness of these risks is growing, there are still gaps in policy implementation, technological adoption, and global coordination. One way to address this could be through structured literature reviews that synthesize existing knowledge on key GCBR topics—like infectious disease surveillance, far-UVC applications, or PPE supply chains—and translate complex research into actionable policy recommendations.

Core Concept and Approach

The idea involves creating concise, 2-page literature reviews focused on specific GCBR topics. These reviews would summarize key findings from academic papers, policy documents, and expert reports, while also identifying gaps in current approaches. Instead of vague suggestions, they would propose concrete solutions, such as specific regulatory language (e.g., mandating wastewater monitoring in cities) or technological improvements. The goal would be to balance technical accuracy with accessibility, making the reviews useful for policymakers, researchers, and advocacy groups alike.

Stakeholders and Potential Impact

Such reviews could serve multiple audiences:

• Policymakers could use them to draft or amend regulations.
• Researchers might identify overlooked gaps in their fields.
• Nonprofits and industry could leverage the findings to advocate for changes or align product development with emerging standards.

To ensure feasibility, the reviews could incorporate feedback from stakeholders during the drafting process, focusing on politically viable and cost-effective solutions.

Execution and Scalability

A minimal viable approach might start with a single high-priority topic, such as PPE supply chain vulnerabilities, before expanding to other areas. The process could involve:

1. Selecting a topic based on threat severity and policy gaps.
2. Compiling and synthesizing research from sources like PubMed and WHO reports.
3. Drafting clear policy recommendations alongside implementation barriers.
4. Circulating the review for expert feedback to refine its practicality.

Existing reports, like those from the WHO or Johns Hopkins, tend to be either too lengthy or overly academic. A shorter, action-oriented format could fill a unique niche by bridging research and real-world policy needs.

By distilling complex GCBR challenges into focused, actionable insights, these reviews could help accelerate preparedness efforts—whether as standalone resources or part of a larger initiative.