Policy analysis uncovers risk-proportionate governance requirements for biological control in global ecosystems, highlighting adaptive oversight for emerging biotechnologies.
This policy research article examines biological control as both a resilience instrument and a purposeful ecological intervention within contemporary biosecurity and health-security governance. As biological risks increasingly intersect with food-system stability, ecosystem integrity, biotechnology, supply-chain integrity, and transboundary risk, the governance of biological control requires an approach that is risk-proportionate without stigmatizing legitimate science or constraining responsible innovation. The article develops an integrated One Health framework for governing biological control across classical, augmentative, conservation, microbial, and emerging genetic approaches. It argues that governance intensity should correspond to persistence, novelty, uncertainty, reversibility, operational integrity, and plausible consequences. Particular attention is given to ecological non-target effects, identity assurance, manufacturing quality, traceability and chain-of-custody, post-release monitoring, adaptive authorization, contingency pathways, and cross-border cooperation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ikenna C. Okafor (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: