23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A systematic review protocol for crime trends facilitated by synthetic biology

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          When new technologies are developed, it is common for their crime and security implications to be overlooked or given inadequate attention, which can lead to a ‘crime harvest’. Potential methods for the criminal exploitation of biotechnology need to be understood to assess their impact, evaluate current policies and interventions and inform the allocation of limited resources efficiently. Recent studies have illustrated some of the security implications of biotechnology, with outcomes of misuse ranging from compromised computers using malware stored in synthesised DNA, infringement of intellectual property on biological matter, synthesis of new threatening viruses, ‘genetic genocide,’ and the exploitation of food markets with genetically modified crops. However, there exists no synthesis of this information, and no formal quality assessment of the current evidence. This review therefore aims to establish what current and/or predicted crimes have been reported as a result of biotechnology.

          Methods

          A systematic review will be conducted to identify relevant literature. ProQuest, Web of Science, MEDLINE and USENIX will be searched utilizing a predefined search string, and Backward and Forward searches. Grey literature will be identified by searching the official UK Government website ( www.gov.uk) and the Global database of Dissertations and Theses. The review will be conducted by screening title/abstracts followed by full texts, utilising pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Papers will be managed using Eppi-center Reviewer 4 software, and data will be organised using a data extraction table using a descriptive coding tool. A predefined rating system (speculative, experimental or currently occurring) will be used to sort studies, and a thematic synthesis of the results will be presented.

          Discussion

          Despite the concerns raised about the misuse of biotechnology, no previous work has been conducted from a Crime Science perspective to collate and assess the literature. This systematic review aims to identify the types of offending activity facilitated by biotechnology, including synthetic biology and genetic engineering. The objective of the review is to examine whether this offending activity can be prevented by assessing the conditions necessary for the crime events to occur. It is anticipated that evidence generated from this review will guide future research in this area and aid relevant stakeholders to prioritise and allocate limited resources to biotechnology crime prevention.

          Systematic review registration

          PROSPERO CRD42019131685

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions

          Background Supporting 21st century health care and the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires ubiquitous access to clinical information and to knowledge-based resources to answer clinical questions. Many questions go unanswered, however, due to lack of skills in formulating questions, crafting effective search strategies, and accessing databases to identify best levels of evidence. Methods This randomized trial was designed as a pilot study to measure the relevancy of search results using three different interfaces for the PubMed search system. Two of the search interfaces utilized a specific framework called PICO, which was designed to focus clinical questions and to prompt for publication type or type of question asked. The third interface was the standard PubMed interface readily available on the Web. Study subjects were recruited from interns and residents on an inpatient general medicine rotation at an academic medical center in the US. Thirty-one subjects were randomized to one of the three interfaces, given 3 clinical questions, and asked to search PubMed for a set of relevant articles that would provide an answer for each question. The success of the search results was determined by a precision score, which compared the number of relevant or gold standard articles retrieved in a result set to the total number of articles retrieved in that set. Results Participants using the PICO templates (Protocol A or Protocol B) had higher precision scores for each question than the participants who used Protocol C, the standard PubMed Web interface. (Question 1: A = 35%, B = 28%, C = 20%; Question 2: A = 5%, B = 6%, C = 4%; Question 3: A = 1%, B = 0%, C = 0%) 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the precision for each question using a lower boundary of zero. However, the 95% confidence limits were overlapping, suggesting no statistical difference between the groups. Conclusion Due to the small number of searches for each arm, this pilot study could not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the search protocols. However there was a trend towards higher precision that needs to be investigated in a larger study to determine if PICO can improve the relevancy of search results.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources.

            To describe where papers come from in a systematic review of complex evidence. Method Audit of how the 495 primary sources for the review were originally identified. Only 30% of sources were obtained from the protocol defined at the outset of the study (that is, from the database and hand searches). Fifty one per cent were identified by "snowballing" (such as pursuing references of references), and 24% by personal knowledge or personal contacts. Systematic reviews of complex evidence cannot rely solely on protocol-driven search strategies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Bias, prevalence and kappa

              Since the introduction of Cohen's kappa as a chance-adjusted measure of agreement between two observers, several "paradoxes" in its interpretation have been pointed out. The difficulties occur because kappa not only measures agreement but is also affected in complex ways by the presence of bias between observers and by the distributions of data across the categories that are used ("prevalence"). In this paper, new indices that provide independent measures of bias and prevalence, as well as of observed agreement, are defined and a simple formula is derived that expresses kappa in terms of these three indices. When comparisons are made between agreement studies it can be misleading to report kappa values alone, and it is recommended that researchers also include quantitative indicators of bias and prevalence.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                M.elgabry.17@ucl.ac.uk
                d.nesbeth@ucl.ac.uk
                shane.johnson@ucl.ac.uk
                Journal
                Syst Rev
                Syst Rev
                Systematic Reviews
                BioMed Central (London )
                2046-4053
                3 February 2020
                3 February 2020
                2020
                : 9
                : 22
                Affiliations
                [1 ]DAWES Centre for Future Crime at UCL, Jill Dando Institute for Security and Crime Science, 35 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9EZ UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.83440.3b, ISNI 0000000121901201, Department of Biochemical Engineering, , University College London, ; Bernard Katz Building, London, WC1E 6BT UK
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5017-7478
                Article
                1284
                10.1186/s13643-020-1284-1
                6998311
                32014050
                fce59c29-aa72-4a4c-a2bf-28d9ad3453e2
                © The Author(s). 2020

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 3 July 2019
                : 23 January 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: open ucl
                Award ID: SM-UCLO-MA-0519
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000266, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council;
                Award ID: 1918475
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Public health
                future crime,biocrime,systematic review,emerging crime trends,biotechnology,methods
                Public health
                future crime, biocrime, systematic review, emerging crime trends, biotechnology, methods

                Comments

                Comment on this article