You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 10, Issue 1
  • Public awareness, acceptability and risk perception about infectious diseases dual-use research of concern: a cross-sectional survey

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Public health
Original research
Public awareness, acceptability and risk perception about infectious diseases dual-use research of concern: a cross-sectional survey
  1. Chandini Raina MacIntyre1,2,3,
  2. Dillon Charles Adam1,
  3. Robin Turner4,
  4. Abrar Ahmad Chughtai5,
  5. Thomas Engells6
  1. 1 Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2 College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
  3. 3 College of Public Service & Community Solutions, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA
  4. 4 Centre for Biostatistics, Division of Health Sciences, University of Otago Dunedin School of Medicine, Dunedin, New Zealand
  5. 5 University of New South Wales School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  6. 6 University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA
  1. Correspondence to Mr Dillon Charles Adam; d.adam{at}unsw.edu.au

Abstract

Objectives In this study, we aimed to measure the awareness, acceptability and perceptions of current issues in biosecurity posed by infectious diseases dual-use research of concern (DURC) in the community. DURC is conducted today in many locations around the world for the benefit of humanity but may also cause harm through either a laboratory accident or deliberate misuse. Most DURC is approved by animal ethics committees, which do not typically consider harm to humans. Given the unique characteristics of contagion and the potential for epidemics and pandemics, the community is an important stakeholder in DURC.

Design Self-administered web-based cross-sectional survey.

Participants Participants over the age of 18 in Australia and 21 in the USA were included in the survey. A total of 604 participants completed the study. The results of 52 participants were excluded due to potential biases about DURC stemming from their employment as medical researchers, infectious diseases researchers or law enforcement professionals, leaving 552 participants. Of those, 274 respondents resided in Australia and 278 in the USA.

Outcomes Baseline awareness, acceptability and perceptions of current issues surrounding DURC. Changes in perception from baseline were measured after provision of information about DURC.

Results Presurvey, 77% of respondents were unaware of DURC and 64% found it unacceptable or were unsure. Two-thirds of respondents did not change their views. The baseline perception of high risk for laboratory accidents (29%) and deliberate bioterrorism (34%) was low but increased with increasing provision of information (42% and 44% respectively, p<0.001), with men more accepting of DURC (OR=1.79, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.57, p=0.002). Postsurvey, higher education predicted lower risk perception of laboratory accidents (OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93, p=0.02) and bioterrorism (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80, p=0.004).

Conclusion The community is an important stakeholder in infectious diseases DURC but has a low awareness of this kind of research. Only a minority support DURC, and this proportion decreased with increasing provision of knowledge. There were differences of opinion between age groups, gender and education levels. The community should be informed and engaged in decisions about DURC.

  • Public health
  • Risk management
  • Health policy
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029134

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Deceased Thomas Engells died on 21 January 2018

    • Contributors CRM: primary conception and design of the study and drafting and revision of the manuscript. DCA contributed to statistical analysis, drafting and revision of the manuscript. RT contributed to study design, statistical analysis and revision of the manuscript. AAC contributed to statistical analysis and revision of the manuscript. TE contributed to conception and design of the study and early revision of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript and contributed to intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript (excluding TE).

    • Funding NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence, Integrated Systems for Epidemic Response (ISER) (grant #1107393). Author CRM is also supported by a NHMRC Principal Research Fellowship (grant #1137582)

    • Competing interests Author CRM has sat on advisory boards for GSK, CSL and Pfizer and has received funding or in-kind support for investigator-driven research from GSK, BioCSL, Wyeth and Pfizer.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval Informed consent for participation was requested online prior to survey administration. All responses were anonymous. Respondents could freely refuse to participate and withdraw from the study at any time. Incentives are used by SSI (the survey company) in their standard recruiting methodology, which includes the chance to win cash, points and prizes through random prize draws. The study was approved by the UNSW Human Research Ethics Committee (UNSW Ethics no. HC16966).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement No data are available.