Information hazards pose growing governance challenges in the life sciences, yet fundamental questions remain unresolved about what constitutes such hazards, who has authority to make determinations, and how to balance openness with security. This project will examine how information hazards have been conceptualized and managed historically across different fields to identify transferable lessons and persistent governance gaps.
About the project
Information hazards, defined as risks arising from the dissemination of true information that could enable harm, present a growing challenge for life sciences governance. Fundamental questions remain unresolved: What exactly constitutes an information hazard? Who has the authority to make such determinations? And how have different communities historically navigated the tension between scientific openness and security? Building on the results of a forthcoming expert interview study, this project will examine how information hazards have been conceptualized and managed across different fields and time periods. The project aims to identify transferable lessons and persistent governance gaps from historical cases, and to propose refined definitions and governance structures for managing biological information hazards.
Key Research Questions A) Definitional Challenges
- How has the concept of "information hazard" evolved across disciplines, and what competing definitions exist in philosophy, security studies, and the life sciences?
- What are the key points of disagreement—such as the emphasis on "true" information, the role of intent, or the temporal dimension of harm—and how might these be reconciled or productively managed?
- How do cultural, institutional, and disciplinary contexts shape what is recognized as an information hazard, and what are the implications for cross-border governance? B) Historical Precedents and Lessons
- How have different scientific communities historically managed the tension between openness and security, and what governance mechanisms proved effective or counterproductive?
- What lessons from nuclear secrecy debates, cryptography export controls, and cybersecurity vulnerability disclosure are transferable to biological information hazards, and where do fundamental disanalogies limit such transfer?
- How have landmark cases (H5N1 gain-of-function, mirror bacteria, AI-enabled drug discovery) shaped current norms, and what gaps remain unaddressed? C) Governance Design
- What institutional structures, from informal norms to formal classification systems, have been proposed or implemented for managing information hazards, and what are their respective strengths and limitations?
- How should governance frameworks balance the risks of over-securitization (stifling research, driving information underground) against under-securitization (enabling misuse)?
- What role should different actors (individual researchers, institutions, governments, international bodies) play in information hazard governance, and how can responsibilities be appropriately allocated?
Expected Output The primary output will be a policy paper or journal article providing a systematic analysis of information hazard definitions and historical governance approaches, with recommendations for developing more coherent and effective frameworks in the life sciences context.
Background Reading:
Theory of change
This project addresses AI-enabled biorisks by developing governance frameworks for managing information hazards as AI tools increasingly lower barriers to generating or identifying dangerous biological information. Clear definitions and decision-making structures are needed now to help researchers and policymakers navigate responsible disclosure of dual-use findings.
Your role
The mentee should be comfortable working independently. I'll provide clear guidance and will be available for regular check-ins.
Prerequisites
- Experience with literature research
- familiarity with science and technology studies, biosecurity, or information governance helpful but not essential
Time commitment
at least 5 hours
Application question(s)
Please explain in under 200 words why you're interested in this project and how your background and skills will help make this project a success.
About the mentor
Anemone Franz is a visiting research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, where she focuses on biosafety and biosecurity. Before joining AEI, Dr. Franz worked as a clinical trial physician at the biotech startup Alvea and as an adviser for the nonprofit 80,000 Hours. She was a 2024 fellow in the Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity program at Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and a 2025 International Mid-Career Biosecurity Fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks. She is also a member of the European Leadership Network. Her work has appeared in publications such as the Hill, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Dr. Franz holds a master’s in public health policy from Harvard University and a doctorate in medicine from Julius-Maximilians University of Würzburg.