This commentary advocates for One Health and security integration to strengthen resilience against biological threats.
Cross-border biological threats are increasing both in frequency and complexity. Whether of natural, accidental, or deliberate origin, they pose serious risks for public and animal health, economics, and national security. They can also create vulnerabilities capable of being exploited by malicious actors, worsening health crises, and undermining trust in response efforts. Although both the health and security sectors share a common interest in mitigating these threats, they often operate in silos. The One Health approach, which aims at optimizing the health of animals, people, and the environment, has gained momentum in recent years; however, its implementation faces challenges such as weak governance, lack of resources, and, notably, the exclusion of security actors whose roles and capacities remain underrecognized. Security actors play a vital role in preventing, detecting, and investigating criminal activities related to biological incidents as well as supporting health actors with biological threat response. There is a general lack of understanding of the One Health approach within the security community and health is often predominately viewed through a human safety viewpoint often omitting animal and environmental health. This commentary advocates for the mutual integration of One Health and security approaches to strengthen resilience against cross-border biological threats. Concrete examples and recommendations to foster integration are discussed such as updating legislation, formalizing information sharing mechanisms, and undertaking joint capacity building, all while recognizing common challenges in mutual integration. To protect people, animals, and the environment alike, it is time to act to ensure coordinated efforts to mitigate cross-border biological threats.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Donachie et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: