Stop, Collaborate, and Listen: A Thematic Analysis of Life Scientists’ Calls for Research Moratoria

Introduction: While scientist-led calls for moratoria are not uncommon, there is little consensus on when a moratorium is appropriate and little guidance on the topic: training, education, and professional guidance for life scientists do not specify when a moratorium might be justified. Guidance on ethical moratoria is needed. We conducted a thematic analysis of key publications in which life science researchers publicly advocated for a moratorium on specific lines of research. Methods: Articles were identified through citation tracing, review of the secondary literature on scientific research governance, news articles, and a targeted literature search of PubMed and Google Scholar. Articles were included if they were (a) published in a scientific journal, (b) (co-)authored by a practicing scientist, and (c) called for a temporary ban or pause on a line of research. Two researchers coded and then thematically analyzed the articles. Results: Twenty publications and six themes were identified: (1) the research is potentially very risky; (2) there is an unclear immediate or urgent societal or clinical need; (3) regulations and consensus are presently lacking; (4) there is societal pressure to pause or a lack of societal buy-in; (5) there are serious ethical and social concerns; and (6) impact on science. Conclusion: Calls for scientific moratoria reveal several recurring themes, but they lack consistently applied criteria. Biosafety professionals have an important role to play in risk communication, the development and dissemination of best practices, and the cultivation of trust in the governance of potentially risky scientific research.