Biorisk Assessment and Management With Saeed Khan

Saeed Khan, Ph.D., Head of the Department of Molecular Pathology at Dow diagnostic research and reference laboratory and President of the Pakistan Biological Safety Association discusses the importance and challenges of biosafety/biosecurity practices on both a local and global scale. He highlights key steps for biorisk assessment and management and stresses the importance of training, timing and technology.

Ashley's Biggest Takeaways

• Adequate biosafety and biosecurity protocols depend on a thorough understanding of modern challenges, and scientists must be willing and able to respond to new technological threats appropriately.
• In the microbiology lab, the threat goes beyond the physical pathogen. Implications of genomics and cyber security must be built into biorisk management techniques, including data storage and waste management practices.
• Risk assessments involve evaluation of both inherent and residual risk.
• Inherent risk is linked to the pathogen.
• Residual risk varies according to the lab, equipment, employee, environment, etc.
• As a result, biosafety and biosecurity risks are constantly changing, and assessments must be repeated strategically and often.
• Khan recommended repeating a risk assessment whenever a key variable in the equation changes, i.e., new equipment, new employee, new pathogen. He also recommended (at minimum) conducting routine risk assessments every 6 months, or twice a year.

“We need to have basic biosafety and biosecurity to stay away from these bugs and the modern challenges, like cyber biosecurity and genomics. These are the new areas, which are potential threats for the future, and where we need to train our researchers and students.” “Starting from simple hand washing or hand hygiene, the basic things we use are gloves, goggles and PPE to protect the workers, the staff and the patient from getting infected from the environment, laboratory or hospitals. These are the basic things, and it's very crucial, because if one is not using gloves in the lab or not wearing the lab coat, he or she may get infected from the sample, and the patient can get infected from the physician and doctors or nurse if they are not following the basic biosafety rules. These [things] are routinely important. Every day we should practice this.” “But there are [also] new challenges. Particularly in the microbiology lab, we [used to] think that once we killed the bacteria, then it's fine. But nowadays, it's not the way we should think about it. Though you kill the bacteria practically, it still has a sequence, [which] we call the genome, and if you have that information with you, you theoretically have the potential to recreate that pathogen… that can be used or maybe misused as well.” “[Working with] scripts of pathogens, like smallpox or the polioviruses, we call this synthetic biology. Different scientists are doing it for the right purposes, like for production of vaccines, to find new therapeutics, to understand the pathology of the diseases. But on [the other hand]—we call it dual use research of concern (DURC)—the same can be misused as well. That's why it's very important to be aware of the bugs that we are working with, and the potential of that pathogen or microbe, to the extent that can be useful or otherwise.” “So, we should be aware of the new concern of the technology, synthetic biology and DURC. These are new concepts—cyber, biosecurity and information security [are all] very much important these days. You cannot be relaxed being in the microbiology lab. Once we have identified a pathogen, declared a result to the patient and the physician, and it's been treated, we [still] need to be worried about waste management—that we discard that waste properly and we have proper inventory control of our culture. It should be safe in the locker or on in the freezers and properly lo