As biological design tools and AI-driven models advance rapidly, the lack of standardized biosecurity practices creates inconsistencies in risk mitigation. Without a centralized reference, developers face challenges in adopting best practices, and the broader community struggles to establish norms. One way to address this gap could be by creating a curated, publicly accessible repository of biosecurity statements from leading tools and models.

How the Repository Could Work

The repository could compile statements from tools like AlphaFold and Open CRISPR, categorizing them by tool type (e.g., protein folding, gene editing) and biosecurity focus (e.g., access control, misuse prevention). It might also include analyses of common themes, gaps, and emerging norms, along with templates for new developers. Hosted as a searchable website or database, it could allow updates and community contributions to stay current.

Potential Benefits and Stakeholders

Several groups could benefit from such a repository:

• Tool Developers: A reference for biosecurity practices could reduce the burden of creating policies from scratch.
• Regulators: The repository could help identify trends and gaps, streamlining oversight.
• Researchers: Academics studying dual-use risks could use it for comparative analyses.

Incentives for participation might include reputational benefits for developers, standardization for regulators, and research opportunities for academics.

Execution and Challenges

An MVP could start with a basic website featuring high-profile tool statements, later expanding to include community submissions and analytical features. Challenges like ensuring comprehensive coverage or balancing transparency with sensitivity might be addressed through partnerships and a review process for submissions.

Compared to existing guidelines (e.g., NIH or WHO biosafety manuals), this repository would uniquely focus on AI-driven biological tools, filling a gap in digital and algorithmic risk management.