It certainly helps, and we would recommend taking a look through the intro GCBR curriculum. At the same time, the pathway for some biosecurity researchers goes from technical research -> learning about the overview of biosecurity.
In short, these two programs are fairly complementary, and order probably doesn't matter as much as focus/curiosity.
Thanks for the thoughts!
I think you're right on sterilization making more sense for mitigation. My thought process was that sterilization of surfaces in hospitals and the air can almost fully prevent infections from spreading. The case for mitigation does feel more natural though.
On choosing ontologies, I think that several frameworks could have worked in theory, but in practice I felt that the mitigate-prevent framework was the simplest to understand for a general audience. As with all frameworks, there are gray areas, but the distinction is clear enough so that the visual makes sense.
Just added a link, hopefully that makes it more accessible! Thanks for pointing this out.
Thanks for the constructive feedback! I've added a link to a larger image as per your suggestion.An updateable online list of resources seems useful, and I'm currently working on something similar. QR codes didn't occur to me at all, so thanks for pointing that out! And on zoonotic risk, I was thinking of the other definition (i.e. previously didn't infect humans), though I agree that vectors such as mosquitoes would also count.On specific rationales, it's often hard to speak explicitly about why things are and aren't low-downside because of info hazard concerns. This is of course a problem when trying to communicate risk levels. This map is just my take on the state of biosecurity interventions. Even within the biosecurity community, there are debates for and against each side. That said, I agree that directed links and resources would be helpful.
Thanks again for taking the time to respond!
Thanks for your comment Linch! We appreciate the feedback.
To clarify, competence and fit are ultimately the most important considerations for a position at the end of the day. We don't think you should prevent talented young people from non-elite backgrounds from taking on senior-level positions. Our claim is closer to: 1) if you create a prestigious website/application/program then you would get better candidates, and 2) experience at an elite institution is one factor among many that is fairly predictive for average competence/specialization. I'm now more more uncertain about whether 1) is true.
I agree with a) in that explicitly aiming at prestige seems to lose a lot of energy better spent aiming elsewhere. I'm not too sure I understand what you mean by b), but to reiterate our point: we think that it's basically pointless (and probably detrimental!) to be elitist for entry level positions, given the selection pressures.
Hopefully this clarifies our thinking a bit more, and thanks again for taking the time to share your thoughts!
Thanks for taking the time to write this response! We really appreciate the feedback.
A couple of points:
As a final note, I want to emphasize that people from non-elite institutions can, and often do amazing work. Elite institutions don't ensure the "best" people, or even "better people", simply a baseline of fairly competent people depending on what your situation is.
Thanks again for writing up your comment! We really want to encourage discussion around topics that are often "taboo" but important and widely present in the movement.
I think this is an interesting consideration!
I'm still curious about the opportunity cost for those people's time, though. On first pass, it seems likely that if you feel overqualified for a position, it probably tracks something important and you should look into alternative ways of maximizing your impact. But it's good to keep in mind that even if you feel overqualified, there are legitimate reasons to still choose that position besides looking for a job.
This website is great for all things science fiction. Here's a list of technologies that were predicted (there are hundreds!):
This sounds super exciting! Despite working in biosecurity field-building, for some reason running paper-writing competitions never occurred to me, but I think this seems like a promising direction to point biosecurity-keen students towards.
You mentioned that writing the paper took 40-60 hours, but what about the time commitment for reading papers / talking with experts?
Will reach out!