Hide table of contents

Thank you to Chris Bakerlee & Tessa Alexanian for the edits & suggestions.


I frequently get the following questions:

  • Am I a good fit for biosecurity?
  • How do I test my fit for biosecurity?
  • The general idea of working in biosecurity seems exciting but I am hesitant to apply to a full-time position or a 2-month summer program.
  • How do I get involved in a biosecurity project?
  • What if I am not interested in working in a lab, but think biosecurity is important? What should I do?
     

Having talked to a number of people about this I have composed a list of projects that can be completed without the need for a lab (a computer & internet access is required). These should take 10-15 hours total and will allow individuals to test their fit for biosecurity. 

List of projects:

See the next section for details & specific examples of the projects

  1. Conduct & write up a 2-page literature review on any of the following GCBR topics: Infectious Disease Surveillance, UVC, Indoor Air Quality, and PPE.
  2. Conduct & write up a 2-page literature review of the existing biosecurity policy of any particular country. In particular, it would be helpful to do this with countries that have biosecurity programmes in their country.
  3. Conduct & write up a 2-page survey of the biggest supply chain shocks in the last 100 years, and what can we learn from them for GCBR resilience?
  4. Conduct a 2-page distillation of one of the biosecurity articles from this list.
  5. Conduct a 2-page review of the labs in your university/local area that are working on biosecurity research.
  6. Conduct a 2-page review of the history, current status, and potential future applications to global biological weapon nonproliferation/disarmament of one article on the biological weapons convention.

More in-depth information about each project:

  1. Conduct & write up a 2-page literature review on any of the following topics:
    1. Infectious Disease Surveillance
    2. Far UVC & Indoor Air Quality
    3. Next-generation vaccines & antivirals
    4. PPE (Personal Protective Equipment). An example of a speedrun
    5. Supply chains & global coordination of any of the above. Particularly focused on identifying issues with existing policy, suggestions, and details around implementing policy (ex. Not just what should a policy cover broadly, but how would you write a policy)
  2. Conduct & write up a 2-page literature review of the existing biosecurity policy of any particular country.
    1. Policy and governance over dual-use research of concern (DURC) or any element of biosafety and biosecurity (ex. DNA synthesis, enhanced potential pandemic pathogens)
    2. DURC, ePPP, gain-of-function, and lab-based biosafety and biosecurity
    3. Emerging Technologies and synthetic biology risks and Oversight
    4. Import Control
    5. Select Agents
    6. Animal & Plant Risks
    7. DNA synthesis and emerging technologies
    8. Specific example: review DURC policy in India
    9. Specific example: review strategic countermeasure stockpiling in Brazil
    10. For more examples please look at Global Bio Labs.
    11. For more information go to the country profiles from the GHSI
      1. They are lengthy PDFs but contain a lot of information.
      2. For example, to find the one for Canada, you would go here and then click "Country Score Justification Summary" and you will get this.
  3. Conduct & write up a 2-page survey of the biggest supply chain shocks in the last 100 years, and what can we learn from them for GCBR resilience?
  4. Picking one specific shock, examining its effects & evaluating why it was worse than others
  5. Conduct a 2-page distillation of one of the biosecurity articles from this list.
    1. Your 2-page article should be accessible to a wide audience and should be able to be understood by someone with little background knowledge about biology
    2. Write a summary a book summary of the Dead Hand
    3. Write a book summary of Biosecurity Dilemmas
  6. Conduct a 2-page review of the labs in your university/local area that are working on biosecurity research.
    1. This should be a general summary of the key individuals working in biosecurity around you
  7. Conduct a 2-page review of the history, current status, and potential future applications to global biological weapon nonproliferation/disarmament of one article on the biological weapons convention.
    1. Only pick one article

Guidelines & FAQ for the Projects

  • Who are these projects aimed at & what background do I need to have?
    • Individuals who are interested in transitioning into biosecurity
    • You do not need to have a background in biosecurity to get started, but a working knowledge of some biological or policy processes may help.
  • How long should I spend working on one of these projects?
  • When & how should I get feedback on this project?
    • Do not spend more than 15 hours on this project before getting feedback on it
    • See the next section for specific instructions
  • What if I start on one of these projects and don’t like it?
    • Use this to test your fit, if you find that you are not engaged or interested in the work feel free to try another project from the list or to switch to another cause area. 

I have finished a project from this list, what do I do next?

  • Spend 15 minutes evaluating if you enjoyed pursuing this type of work by listing the project's pros and cons of the process. Some examples of things to consider are below.
    • Did I find this kind of research interesting?
    • Are there similar questions I would enjoy looking into?
    • Which parts of my project do I feel most confident in?
    • Which parts do I think I would change my mind on if I took more time to research?
Comments8
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Fantastic post, I would love to see 80k do this for every cause area they recommend. I often found myself recommending similar personal-fit tests for policy work which typically boiled down to variants of:

  • Read the legislation relevant to your field of interest, then come back and tell me what you think.
  • Follow a parliamentary plenary debate and see if you can stay awake, analyze the political positions of people speaking in relation to their party-lines.

The people do the cheap tests most often come back with thoughtful and nuanced takes, which they can later write up and share as a longer test of fit - What comes out is also great signal for potential EA employers that you're informed on the topic and conscientious)

Strong +1 to the idea of following debates or meetings and writing up notes - as a benefit, this seems like a nearly unlimited source of projects and one that is substantively valuable as well.

This was pretty much my goal with this! Thank you for sharing your thoughts. 

This is great! I think that project-based learning is simply a way more effective way to learn about a cause area than going through a reading list (I know you've written about this before). Cold Takes has quite a lot of writing about how just reading stuff is probably not the best way to form a view and robustly retain things.

It's also super generous of you to offer to review people's fit-test projects :)

Thank you so much! I appreciate it :) 

Thanks for writing this up Sofya!

Seconded. Strongly endorse this as a first step for junior people.

Appreciate it, I hope some people engage with it. 

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
Tl;dr: In this post, I describe a concept I call surface area for serendipity — the informal, behind-the-scenes work that makes it easier for others to notice, trust, and collaborate with you. In a job market where some EA and animal advocacy roles attract over 1,300 applicants, relying on traditional applications alone is unlikely to land you a role. This post offers a tactical roadmap to the hidden layer of hiring: small, often unpaid but high-leverage actions that build visibility and trust before a job ever opens. The general principle is simple: show up consistently where your future collaborators or employers hang out — and let your strengths be visible. Done well, this increases your chances of being invited, remembered, or hired — long before you ever apply. Acknowledgements: Thanks to Kevin Xia for your valuable feedback and suggestions, and Toby Tremlett for offering general feedback and encouragement. All mistakes are my own. Why I Wrote This Many community members have voiced their frustration because they have applied for many jobs and have got nowhere. Over the last few years, I’ve had hundreds of conversations with people trying to break into farmed animal advocacy or EA-aligned roles. When I ask whether they’re doing any networking or community engagement, they often shyly say “not really.” What I’ve noticed is that people tend to focus heavily on formal job ads. This makes sense, job ads are common, straightforward and predictable. However, the odds are stacked against them (sometimes 1,300:1 — see this recent Anima hiring round), and they tend to pay too little attention to the unofficial work — the small, informal, often unpaid actions that build trust and relationships long before a job is posted. This post is my attempt to name and explain that hidden layer of how hiring often happens, and to offer a more proactive, human, and strategic path into the work that matters. This isn’t a new idea, but I’ve noticed it’s still rarely discussed op
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
I wrote a reply to the Bentham Bulldog argument that has been going mildly viral. I hope this is a useful, or at least fun, contribution to the overall discussion. Intro/summary below, full post on Substack. ---------------------------------------- “One pump of honey?” the barista asked. “Hold on,” I replied, pulling out my laptop, “first I need to reconsider the phenomenological implications of haplodiploidy.”     Recently, an article arguing against honey has been making the rounds. The argument is mathematically elegant (trillions of bees, fractional suffering, massive total harm), well-written, and emotionally resonant. Naturally, I think it's completely wrong. Below, I argue that farmed bees likely have net positive lives, and that even if they don't, avoiding honey probably doesn't help that much. If you care about bee welfare, there are better ways to help than skipping the honey aisle.     Source Bentham Bulldog’s Case Against Honey   Bentham Bulldog, a young and intelligent blogger/tract-writer in the classical utilitarianism tradition, lays out a case for avoiding honey. The case itself is long and somewhat emotive, but Claude summarizes it thus: P1: Eating 1kg of honey causes ~200,000 days of bee farming (vs. 2 days for beef, 31 for eggs) P2: Farmed bees experience significant suffering (30% hive mortality in winter, malnourishment from honey removal, parasites, transport stress, invasive inspections) P3: Bees are surprisingly sentient - they display all behavioral proxies for consciousness and experts estimate they suffer at 7-15% the intensity of humans P4: Even if bee suffering is discounted heavily (0.1% of chicken suffering), the sheer numbers make honey consumption cause more total suffering than other animal products C: Therefore, honey is the worst commonly consumed animal product and should be avoided The key move is combining scale (P1) with evidence of suffering (P2) and consciousness (P3) to reach a mathematical conclusion (
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Is now the time to add to RP’s great work?     Rethink’s Moral weights project (MWP) is immense and influential. Their work is the most cited “EA” paper written in the last 3 years by a mile - I struggle to think of another that comes close. Almost every animal welfare related post on the forum quotes the MWP headline numbers - usually not as gospel truth, but with confidence. Their numbers carry moral weight[1] moving hearts, minds and money towards animals. To oversimplify, if their numbers are ballpark correct then... 1. Farmed animal welfare interventions outcompete human welfare interventions for cost-effectiveness under most moral positions.[2] 2.  Smaller animal welfare interventions outcompete larger animal welfare if you aren’t risk averse. There are downsides in over-indexing on one research project for too long, especially considering a question this important. The MWP was groundbreaking, and I hope it provides fertile soil for other work to sprout with new approaches and insights. Although the concept of “replicability”  isn't quite as relevant here as with empirical research, I think its important to have multiple attempts at questions this important. Given the strength of the original work, any new work might be lower quality - but perhaps we can live with that. Most people would agree that more deep work needs to happen here at some stage, but the question might be is now the right time to intentionally invest in more?   Arguments against more Moral Weights work 1. It might cost more money than it will add value 2. New researchers are likely to land land on a similar approaches and numbers to RP so what's the point?[3] 3. RP’s work is as good as we are likely to get, why try again and get a probably worse product? 4. We don’t have enough new scientific information since the original project to meaningfully add to the work. 5. So little money goes to animal welfare work  now anyway, we might do more harm than good at least in the short t