ISSN: 2157-2526

Journal de bioterrorisme et de biodéfense

Accès libre

Notre groupe organise plus de 3 000 séries de conférences Événements chaque année aux États-Unis, en Europe et en Europe. Asie avec le soutien de 1 000 autres Sociétés scientifiques et publie plus de 700 Open Access Revues qui contiennent plus de 50 000 personnalités éminentes, des scientifiques réputés en tant que membres du comité de rédaction.

Les revues en libre accès gagnent plus de lecteurs et de citations
700 revues et 15 000 000 de lecteurs Chaque revue attire plus de 25 000 lecteurs

Indexé dans
  • Indice source CAS (CASSI)
  • Index Copernic
  • Google Scholar
  • Sherpa Roméo
  • Ouvrir la porte J
  • JournalSeek de génamique
  • Clés académiques
  • JournalTOC
  • RechercheBible
  • Infrastructure nationale du savoir de Chine (CNKI)
  • Annuaire des périodiques d'Ulrich
  • Recherche de référence
  • Université Hamdard
  • EBSCO AZ
  • OCLC-WorldCat
  • Catalogue en ligne SWB
  • Publons
  • Fondation genevoise pour l'enseignement et la recherche médicale
  • Euro Pub
  • ICMJE
Partager cette page

Abstrait

Low Level of Awareness in Biosafety and Biosecurity among Professionals in Uganda: A Potential Risk in the Dual-Use Dilemma

Halid Kirunda1* and Maxwell OtimOnapa2  

Disease diagnosis, and analysis or manipulation of both human and animal samples, expose scientists and practitioners to disease causing agents and toxins. In situations of poor awareness of biosecurity, the same samples can easily be accessed by persons with wrong intentions or misused by the same scientists or practitioners (dualuse). In Uganda information required to minimize the global challenges of biosafety and biosecurity has been largely lacking. The current study assessed the level of awareness and existence of procedures, regulations, laws and policies on biosafety and biosecurity among institutions in the different sectors, professions and regions across the country. Results showed that sector, profession and region were each a predictor for nine of the assessed variables. Among the most striking was that profession significantly influenced (χ2=49.0) the opinion that institutional measures to prevent or prohibit production, stockpiling, retention or unimpeded access to pathogenic agents and biological toxins existed. Professionals (veterinary scientists and laboratory technologists) in animal health research had reduced odds of holding this opinion (OR=0.2, 95% CI: 0.05-0.87) compared to their counterparts in public hygiene. Scientific establishments in eastern (OR=0.3, 95% CI: 0.17-0.7, p<0.01), northern (OR=0.4, 95% CI: 0.17-0.71, p<0.01) and western (OR=0.3, 95% CI: 0.16-0.51, p<0.01) regions were less associated with professionals trained in biosafety and biosecurity compared to central Uganda. Professionals in wildlife conservation, medical, human health research, public hygiene and crop extension services were 9.5, 7.0, 5.7, 5.4 and 4.0 times, respectively, more likely to consider Uganda’s disease monitoring system as adequate compared to those in veterinary services sector. We conclude that there is inadequate level of awareness on laboratory biosafety and biosecurity among professionals in the country. There is need for raising awareness and training of relevant professionals and formulation of measures, policies, regulations and laws to help prevent exposure to and misuse of dangerous biological agents and toxins in Uganda.