Academic research institutions need to build resilience against all types of disasters, according to a National Academies report

The research community involved with academic biomedicine should improve its abilities to mitigate and recover from disasters, according to a recent report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

According to the report, the results of various disasters, ranging from hurricanes to cyberattacks, total approximately $27 billion annually and the investments made by the U.S. federal government to mitigate their effects were not uniformly secure.

“Convening this group of national experts to carefully consider and report on these important security issues is a critical step in protecting our nation’s investment in biomedical research and our ability to continue our future work and safeguard our personnel and resources,” Alex Isakov, executive director of the Emory University Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, said.

In order to better enhance the resilience of academical biomedical research, the report offered 10 recommendations for academic research institutions and research sponsors including designating a senior individual with oversight of disaster resilience efforts for the research enterprise; implementing comprehensive disaster resilience planning efforts; and developing, enhancing, and leveraging local, state, and national partnerships.

The report also recommended that each institution ensures the preservation of research data and samples through data backups and duplicate samples, implements mandatory disaster resilience education and training programs, improves the disaster resilience of animal research programs, and develops performance-based standards for research facilities.

Additionally, the academies recommended institutions develop an institutional financial investment strategy for disaster resilience, including carrying commercial disaster insurance; convening a group of stakeholders to discuss efforts to enhance disaster resilience for the academic biomedical research community; and recognizing and engaging the academic biomedical research community as a subsector of the healthcare infrastructure sector.

“I would recommend that every person involved in biomedical research, whether they be a principal investigator or a president, read this report and adapt the recommendations to their individual laboratories and institutions,” Isakov said.