Scientific research in high-impact areas like pathogen enhancement often faces gridlock due to conflicting expert opinions about risks and benefits. Without a structured way to reconcile these views, policymakers struggle to make informed decisions, leading to research delays or inconsistent regulations. This challenge is particularly acute in dual-use research, where the same work could bring major public health benefits or catastrophic risks if misused.

A Structured Approach to Expert Consensus

One way to address this could be through a digital platform that systematically collects and synthesizes expert assessments. The platform would allow experts to anonymously submit evaluations using standardized metrics, view aggregated results showing opinion distributions, and participate in moderated discussions to reconcile differences. Through iterative refinements, the system could produce stabilized consensus ranges with visual outputs highlighting areas of agreement and confidence levels.

Key features might include:

• Standardized evaluation frameworks for consistent risk/benefit assessment
• Anonymous submission to reduce bias from peer pressure or institutional politics
• Dynamic visualization tools showing evolving consensus patterns

Implementation Pathways

A phased approach could start with a minimum viable product (MVP) consisting of a basic survey tool for collecting expert ratings on specific research proposals. This could be tested with 20-30 domain experts recruited through professional networks. Subsequent phases might add discussion features, reputation systems to weight expert input, and eventually policy recommendation algorithms.

The platform could integrate with existing processes by:

• Providing supplemental data to institutional review boards
• Offering exportable reports formatted for funding agencies
• Developing API connections with research oversight systems

Distinct Advantages

Unlike existing approaches that use fixed rules or ad hoc consultations, this method would enable continuous, documented consensus-building. While current systems like NIH guidelines or WHO advisory committees provide valuable input, they lack the systematic, iterative approach that could transform polarized debates into evidence-based discussions.

By creating structured processes for aggregating expert input, such a platform could help overcome one of the critical bottlenecks in advancing responsible research while maintaining rigorous safety standards.