Viral discovery research, while valuable for scientific progress and pandemic preparedness, carries significant risks of accidental pathogen release or misuse. The central challenge lies in balancing potential benefits against the possibility of catastrophic outcomes—even low-probability risks become concerning when the consequences could threaten civilization. One approach to addressing this could involve targeted advocacy to identify and mitigate the most dangerous forms of viral research while promoting safer alternatives.

Core Strategy and Approach

This idea could focus on several key actions:

• Developing clear criteria to identify high-risk projects (e.g., those involving potential pandemic pathogens or inadequate containment protocols)
• Building coalitions with scientists, policymakers, and biosecurity experts to advocate for responsible research practices
• Creating policy proposals to regulate the most dangerous forms of viral discovery work
• Promoting safer alternatives like computational prediction methods or pseudovirus systems

The approach would differ from existing biosecurity efforts by specifically targeting the upstream collection and study of novel viruses, rather than focusing on broader pandemic preparedness or general gain-of-function research.

Implementation Phases

One way to execute this could involve three progressive phases:

1. Foundation Building (6-12 months): Form expert working groups to develop risk assessment frameworks and create white papers outlining specific concerns and recommendations.
2. Targeted Advocacy (1-2 years): Engage with policymakers and funding bodies while launching public education campaigns about research-associated risks.
3. Ongoing Monitoring: Establish systems to identify emerging high-risk projects and advocate for policy changes as new challenges arise.

As a starting point, the effort could focus on a single high-profile case or research practice to demonstrate effectiveness before expanding scope.

Balancing Interests and Challenges

The approach would need to carefully navigate competing interests. While virologists might resist perceived restrictions on their work, the strategy could emphasize redirection rather than elimination of research—for instance, by:

• Collaborating with sympathetic researchers to develop safer protocols
• Highlighting historical near-misses to demonstrate real risks
• Creating funding incentives for lower-risk alternatives that maintain scientific value

Key policy targets might include mandatory pre-approval for work with potential pandemic pathogens and international standards for field collection safety.

This type of focused advocacy could complement existing biosecurity efforts by addressing a specific, high-consequence risk pathway in viral research while still preserving valuable scientific inquiry through safer methods.