In this report, the authors assess biosafety and biosecurity practices at informal biolabs, describe the research activities occurring at informal biolabs, identify motivational drivers for those who do research at informal biolabs, discuss the operational components of informal biolabs, identify any potential gaps in oversight, and propose strategies to support responsible innovation while mitigating risk.

Mapping the Informal Bioeconomy

Assessing the Current Landscape and Opportunities for Reinforcing Biosafety and Biosecurity

Aurelia Attal-Juncqua, Saskia Popescu, John P. Tarangelo, Graham Griffin, Rebecca Moritz, Forrest W. Crawford

ResearchPublished Dec 1, 2025

Advances in biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and the life sciences have led to significant innovative and economic growth, democratizing technology. The rapid growth of these fields and this research enterprise has resulted in a powerful ecosystem referred to as the bioeconomy.

In this report, the authors seek to map and evaluate the informal bioeconomy from a biosecurity perspective. The authors define the informal bioeconomy as biological research, experimentation, and innovation occurring outside formal institutions and traditional regulatory frameworks.

Specifically, the authors assess the biosafety and biosecurity practices at informal biolabs; describe the types of research activities occurring at informal biolabs; identify the key motivational drivers for those who do research at informal biolabs; discuss the operational components of informal biolabs, such as their methods for acquiring equipment and materials; identify any potential gaps in oversight; and propose strategies to support responsible innovation while mitigating risk.

The authors assess the footprint of informal biolabs using a mapping exercise and the following inclusion criteria to capture relevant entities: physical space, noncommercial focus, small operations, focus on biological research activities, actively accepting members, operation outside traditional regulatory frameworks, a web presence, and informal funding sources.

The authors' findings should inform policymakers' engagements with this heterogeneous landscape in ways that are practical, proportionate to the risks, and aligned with community values while also considering the potential options for further risk mitigation. This research should be of interest to U.S. government stakeholders and scientific leaders involved in shaping the future of biosafety, biosecurity, and the broader bioeconomy.

Key Findings

  • Using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the authors discovered an informal biolab footprint of 45 distinct and eligible informal bioeconomy actors.
  • The motivations for engaging in informal biology are linked to type of laboratory activities.
  • Biosafety training is common but differs by biolab.
  • Informal biolabs host members of the public with a wide variety of laboratory experience.
  • Informal biolabs operate at a low biosafety level, which has a low level of risk.
  • Formal vendors, resale vendors, and donations are the most-frequent procurement methods.
  • There are no federal regulations specific to informal biolabs, but there is governance and oversight via workplace or jurisdictional regulations.
  • Funding constraints are common.
  • Financial incentives could be a mechanism for the implementation of standardized biosafety and biosecurity practices.
  • Options for additional visibility into informal biolabs' activities exist.

Recommendations

  • Build a coordinated governance ecosystem for community labs.
  • Fund biosafety and biosecurity resource hubs.
  • Create a voluntary national laboratory registry.
  • Create tailored microgrant programs.
  • Incentivize modular biosafety and biosecurity training.
  • Require codes of conduct and membership intake.
  • Provide access to on-demand biosafety and biosecurity advisers.
  • Encourage responsible DNA synthesis ordering.
  • Fund scenario-based dual-use education.
  • Enable internal safety feedback loops.
  • Implement a national LABrarian system or similar program to provide embedded biosafety educators.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Attal-Juncqua, Aurelia, Saskia Popescu, John P. Tarangelo, Graham Griffin, Rebecca Moritz, and Forrest W. Crawford, Mapping the Informal Bioeconomy: Assessing the Current Landscape and Opportunities for Reinforcing Biosafety and Biosecurity. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2025. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4332-1.html.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was independently initiated and conducted by the Center on AI, Security, and Technology within RAND Global and Emerging Risks using income from operations and gifts and grants from philanthropic supporters.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.