Scoping review examines gaps in cyberbiosecurity implementation in laboratories, suggesting necessary policy improvements.
Background: Cyberbiosecurity addresses vulnerabilities at the intersection of biological and cyber systems, yet implementation guidance for laboratories remains limited. This scoping review examines cyberbiosecurity implementation in laboratory settings. Methods: A systematic search across five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Google Scholar, ArXiv) identified 47 unique records since 2010. Following PRISMA guidelines, 30 articles met the inclusion criteria. Data extraction focused on publication type, funding source, country focus, private or public sector laboratory, mention of high-containment laboratory (biosafety level [BSL]-3 or BSL-4), laboratory sector focus, topics covered, and cybersecurity attack vectors. Results: Of 30 articles, 57% were literature reviews and 20% were conference/policy papers. Only two (6.7%) were primary implementation studies. Merely 2.6% mentioned high-containment laboratories (BSL-3/BSL-4), while 77% focused on biomanufacturing/medtech sectors (medtech refers to facilities equipped with technology that analyze biological specimens for clinical use, such as surgical, implant, and suture devices). Geographic bias was evident, with 63% focusing on high-income countries. Clinical and diagnostic laboratory guidance was underrepresented (23% coverage). This review revealed no standardized approaches for assessing or implementing cyberbiosecurity capacities in laboratory facilities. Conclusions: Critical gaps exist in cyberbiosecurity implementation for laboratory settings, particularly in the Global South, where significant and growing life sciences research occurs. The absence of laboratory-specific guidance and oversight mechanisms represents significant vulnerabilities. Recommendations include (1) development of enforceable norms and standards by policymakers; (2) integration of cyberbiosecurity safeguards into research funding mechanisms; and (3) mandatory capacity building and training programs for relevant laboratory personnel.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cova et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: