Advisor: Fixing America’s biotechnology governance system will take a major shift

We are at an increasingly urgent moment in biotechnology, according to Sam Weiss Evans, senior advisor at the Federation of American Scientists, who spoke at a recent event at Arizona State University’s Barrett & O’Connor Center in Washington, D.C.

“The world of security and emerging biotechnology is coming apart right now,” Evans said, “if only we could take a moment to see it.”

As it exists, America’s system for biotechnology governance is “fragmented, reactive and outdated,” he said.

According to Evans, fixing the system will require a new way of thinking — a paradigm shift.

“The system that we have to govern (potential harms from emerging biotechnology) today is a result of a half century of oscillations between neglect and bureaucratic bloat,” Evans said.

“To fix this, we need to streamline our oversight, couple it with an ability to assess if it’s working and what new issues need to be addressed, and innovate solutions to those issues at pace to unlock American potential. Doing so would ensure national security, economic vitality and lay a foundation for a broader American renewal.”

In his proposed paradigm shift, elements of the governance system would be more dynamic, circuitous and iterative than our current system, changing from:

• Reactive to proactive
• Fragmented to consolidated
• Static to iterative
• Compliance-based to innovation-forward

Visually, Evans displayed the paradigm as a double helix, with technical capabilities and organizational capabilities acting as the two prongs of the ladder. As the two capabilities twist together, they encounter each step of the new paradigm of biosecurity governance: assess, innovate, sandbox, deploy and iterate.

But Evans was clear that such a shift would not come easily. Ideally, true reform within America’s biosecurity governance would require four things: a fleshed-out vision or paradigm (like the one Evans presented), an increase in political will, a reduction in the amount of political capital needed for change, and a minimization of transition costs to shift the new paradigm.

“We need to shift the conversation from ‘Do we really need to change the way we think about biosecurity’ to ‘Why isn’t everybody already working in the new paradigm?’” Evans said.

Formal legislation that protects and incentivizes the shift is also a key piece of the puzzle. And although President Donald Trump’s executive orders have reflected a desire to improve biosecurity nationally, legislation with approval from both sides of the political aisle is still needed.

Government agencies are feeling the effects of a fragmented approach, as portrayed by Evans detailing how over nine government agencies are involved in gene synthesis alone.

“Government officials, many with decades of experience working to ensure the safe and secure advancement of biotech, have long grown tired of a system that didn’t listen to them, of having to continuously fight battle after battle with their superiors, just to keep the most basic components of oversight in place, and of having to do that without dedicated funding,” Evans said.

Legislatively, some promising steps are being taken, he said. In February, Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) introduced the Biosecurity, Modernization and Innovation Act of 2026. The bill faces an uncertain future during this congressional session.

“I’m rooting for this bill,” Evans said. “If it passes, the bill will be a victory for the ability to screen orders and print DNA. But that issue is just a fleck of pepper on a tiny slice of an ever-growing pizza pie that is the emerging biosecurity threat landscape.”

However, the bill is just one step in a tougher journey ahead for biosecurity, Evans said: “There’s a long road from that bill to a changed paradigm in action.”

The day’s event, titled “Forging a New Paradigm for Biosecurity Governance,” pushed attendees to imagine a different process for biosecurity governance in America, as well as the steps that it will take to get there.

“Today’s discussion addresses a pressing governance challenge for biotechnology: how to move beyond reactive, fragmented oversight systems towards approaches that can anticipate and manage emerging risks while enabling responsive and responsible innovation,” said Arthur Daemmrich, director of ASU’s Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes.

“Biotechnology will go wrong. Of that, we are guaranteed,” Evans said. “Whose concerns are heard and what is done about them is up to you.”

The event was the second in CSPO’s 2026 Winter/Spring Eastbound program series. This season’s series is focused on biotechnology innovation and life sciences.

Watch the seminar online on the CSPO YouTube channel.