Related design. and improved verification procedures the use of computational proposals have focused

The gap

Evidence profile

Sourced from the future work and recommendations of the source papers, classified as general, spanning 3 journals. Those papers have been cited 1 times in total.

Supporting evidence — 4 representative gaps

• Improving governance in the age of synthetic biology, artificial intelligence, and diverging threats (2026) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi

  from non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, industry stakeholders, and citizen groups to inform policy development and strengthen democratic legitimacy in emerging technology governance. These advisory bodies would function as pivotal intermediaries between technical expertise (provided by scientists, risk assessors, and biosecurity specialists) and public interest considerations, including ethical, societal, and legal dimensions, thereby ensuring that governance decisions reflect broader societal values while maintaining scientific rigor. The European Biosecurity Regulators, which unite multiple European organizations to create joint guidance and training resources, may provide a working blueprint for multi-sector governance. In addition to this institutional approach, we advocate for the implementation of systematic transparency and open dialogue facilitate public engagement with complex initiatives technological developments, enabling discourse on the beneficial applications and potential misuse scenarios of SynBio, AI, and other converging technologies. that Such a multi-stakeholder advisory mechanism can significantly enhance public trust, improve policy effectiveness, and create more responsive governance systems capable of adapting to technological change (IAP, 2024; Moya et al., 2025). The integration of these approaches may offer a pathway toward more inclusive and legitimate governance frameworks that can better manage the DU nature of SynBio and emerging technologies while fostering innovation and protecting Public Health. These should be structured bottom-up on an institutional, regional, national and eventually international level (Box 1). 3.2.2 Improve biosecurity through robust training and monitoring systems The most pressing weaknesses in biosecurity concerning SynBio include training, poor monitoring of access authorizations, and a lack of risk awareness among personnel. To inadequate to individual, levels. Training mitigate these vulnerabilities, rigorous and conceptual biosecurity training programs and holistic monitoring systems must be established. This entails the implementation of exhaustive training programs, including interdisciplinary concepts, systems thinking, and collaborative methodologies, which must be regularly updated to reflect the latest advancements in SynBio and other converging technologies. The rationale for prioritizing biosecurity and biorisk management must be clear to all stakeholders and governance institutional, regional, enhancements pinpointed at international national, and enable should professionals identify potential vulnerabilities and develop comprehensive biosecurity strategies that address the entire sy

  generalfuture work
  Keywords: biosecurity governance training public synbio systems institutional technologies monitoring must organizations stakeholders policy emerging advisory
• Navigating the human gene editing scene and proposing a new governance framework in Africa: from knowledge to policy to action (2026) · Frontiers in Genome Editing · doi

  in empirical evidence of what enables authentic deliberation in African governance contexts. substantive exclusion Effective governance of emerging biomedical technologies in African contexts requires moving beyond technocratic models of scientific oversight toward deliberative frameworks grounded in procedural justice. We argue that three interrelated principles: inclusivity of relevant stakeholders, authenticity of deliberation, Effective governance of emerging technologies in heterogeneous contexts requires three structural features (Chan et al., 2015): polycentric authority distribution across governance tiers (Nelson and Gersbach, 2016), mechanisms local knowledge and values into standard-setting, and (Caval and iere, 2018) adaptive review cycles to accommodate technological and social change (N and ikogosian, 2020). We examine how existing African regional governance bodies have operationalized these principles, and what HGGE governance can learn from their successes and limitations. incorporating for

  generalrecommendations
  Keywords: governance african contexts deliberation effective emerging technologies requires three principles empirical evidence enables authentic substantive
• Governing synthetic biology and artificial intelligence (AI) convergence: emerging biosecurity priorities for Africa (2026) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi

  Related design. and improved verification procedures the use of computational proposals have focused on strengthening oversight of the design phase of biological research through enhanced DNA synthesis screening, greater in transparency regarding biological design workflows (Agboli et al., 2025; Ochola, 2025). Increasing attention has also been given to the governance of cloud laboratories, automated experimentation platforms, and AI-enabled biological design systems, reflecting concerns that biosecurity risks may increasingly originate from digitally mediated stages of research rather activities from (Frimpong, 2025). laboratory-based exclusively tools than Several studies advocate for adaptive and risk-proportionate governance models integrate biosafety, biosecurity, cybersecurity, and AI governance considerations within a building, framework. common oversight

  generalrecommendations
  Keywords: design biological governance oversight biosecurity related improved verification procedures computational proposals focused strengthening phase enhanced
• Categorizing realist, critical, and pragmatist perspectives on innovation ecosystems: A research agenda and an initial application to artificial intelligence (2026) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · cited 1× · doi

  critiquing the concentration of power fostered by the rhetoric of AI's potential for hyperscalability engaging with distributed benefits and disadvantages in multi- stakeholder processes to feed them into responsible AI scaling projects understanding AI ecosystems within their broader environments critiquing path- breaking innovation ecosystems for crowding out public interests engaging with system-level capacities for transformative innovation ecosystem governance, addressing the ‘dark sides’ of AI critical interrogation of what is included in and what is excluded from practitioners' system designs. In probing system boundaries, AI practi- tioners gain awareness about the necessary selectiveness and the polit- ical implications of boundary drawing. They cultivate capacities for addressing wider societal and environmental dimensions of an AI ecosystem by shifting their attention from single applications towards sociotechnical systems – a shift advocated in an emerging body of literature on AI ethics and governance (Stahl, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2025; cf. Bolte and van Wynsberghe, 2024; Kudina and van de Poel, 2024). To this end, several practical approaches for supporting AI ecosystem governance have been introduced (e.g., Herzog et al., 2024; Stahl, 2024). The ecosystem metaphor highlights the practical relevance of launching governance interventions at multiple levels – from everyday workflows in groups of innovators up to high-level innovation policy- making – to build capacities for reflecting on and engaging with public interests and concerns related to AI (Herzog and Blank, 2024). To facilitate AI ecosystem governance, it is crucial, then, to have in- termediaries who work across levels and curate spaces in which diverse actors engage in mutual learning, iteratively questioning the boundaries of their systems thinking and anticipating the future effects of their decisions. Such engaged research resonates with recent political calls for building a European innovation ecosystem of AI (CEPS, 2025) and of microelectronics (European Commission, 2024), as well as with earlier efforts by international organizations and policymakers to foster an AI ecosystem of trust (European Commission, 2020; OECD, 2019). Social scientists have used the ecosystem metaphor as boundary object to create an opening for communication and collaboration across social and technical boundaries (research question (b)). They have made ef- forts to foster societal agendas in AI research and development projects that have responded to the abovementioned political calls, and that otherwise would have been dominated by national and economic con- cerns about competitiveness (Smolka et al., 2024). However, researchers notice that openings for collaboration and socio-ethical reflection are easily closed down by narrow

  generalfuture work
  Keywords: ecosystem governance innovation engaging system capacities boundaries european critiquing projects ecosystems public interests level addressing

Questions about this gap