Apr 26, 2026
AI-enabled Biological Tool Policy Dashboard
Aayushi Vishnoi, Pierce Manlangit, G M M Miftahul Alam Adib, Elena Pedrosa Prats, Georgie Phildora Hau Sorensen
The rapid development of AI-enabled biological tools is creating biosecurity risks that existing governance frameworks are not well designed to address. The Global Risk Index for AI-enabled Biological Tools (GRI) offers a framework for assessing AI-bio tools by misuse-relevant capability, maturity, and availability, but it does not disclose the specific finalist tools assessed or map governance coverage at the national level. This paper develops a proof-of-concept governance mapping approach focused on protein engineering, the GRI category identified as requiring immediate governance attention. We examine the United States and the United Kingdom because of their relevance to frontier AI governance, institutional role in AI safety, and high GRI contribution scores. Consistent with responsible disclosure norms, we assess tools at the category level rather than naming specific high-capability systems. Using a cross-database methodology based on EpochAI datasets, we identify 42 protein engineering AI models associated with US institutions and 11 associated with UK institutions. We then map 18 governance instruments, 14 from the US and 4 from the UK, against the protein engineering category. We find that governance in both countries is fragmented, largely downstream of AI model outputs, and poorly calibrated to AI-generated protein design outputs that precede physical material production or synthesis-provider screening. In the US, the revocation of EO 14110 removed the most directly relevant AI-biosecurity executive instrument without a biosecurity-equivalent replacement. We present these findings through an interactive policy dashboard designed to support future expansion across additional AI-bio tool categories and countries.
The approach of developing a policy dashboard for AIxBio governance is interesting, and useful one; however, I found the approach rather muddled in combining both a focus on governance and the listing of the models. I don't see what tabulating the specific models in the country adds to the dashboard. Although there's a bit of interesting reference data there, seems unnecessary for pointing out whether there's a specific governance gap, and, as a result, may be distracting for decision-makers who have limited time and energy. The level of analysis is also, I think, insufficient for the dashboard to be useful in practice. For example, the sample dashboard lists both the UK AI Safety Institute's Frontier Model Framework, and the UK National AI strategy, and codes them both as limited, but that doesn't really tell me anything about what is in the framework, the AI strategy, or how they compare to any larger best practices, recommendations, etc.
I do think the focus on protein engineering is an important limiter, but I'm sympathetic that time constraints limited that.
Great job!
Some thoughts:
- The n=8 / one-scorer setup makes the headline feel less settled than it could be. Two people scoring the same three tools and arriving at the same Red/Amber outcomes would tell you the rubric is actually consistent.
- The 4.0 threshold decides every Red vs. Amber outcome and gets picked without validation. A sensitivity check at 3.5 and 4.5 would show whether anything moves and make the cutoff feel chosen rather than asserted.
- The GitHub Pages visualization is a static reference for the framework hierarchy right now. A minimal working self-assessment (answer the 21 questions, get a result) is the version that actual tool teams could pick up and use!
The Dashboard's largest framing issue is that it presents itself as research novelty when its actual contribution is good policy communication. The structural-gap finding, that AI-generated biological outputs precede every existing regulatory trigger point, is the central analytic claim, but this observation is already developed in Lentzos and Invernizzi on information versus design hazards, in Pannu et al. from Johns Hopkins on biological capability evaluation, in the NTI managed-access framework, in Eslami et al. on synthetic biology and AI convergence, and in Baker and Church's Science piece on protein design biosecurity. The EO 14110 revocation is similarly a public fact that the policy community has been processing for over a year. The team reads and cites much of this literature, which makes the introduction's positioning (that the Dashboard addresses a gap the GRI leaves open) somewhat misleading, because the GRI is not the only relevant predecessor and the broader literature converges on the same diagnosis the Dashboard reaches.
The constructive path is to reposition the work as a synthesis and orientation artifact rather than as a novel contribution to the governance literature, because that framing is both honest and stronger. The useful audience for the Dashboard is not the researchers producing the literature but the legislative staff, foundation program officers, journalists, and adjacent-field researchers who need a navigable entry point to a developed policy question, and the dashboard format serves that audience well. The smaller original moves the project does make (the cross-database tool identification methodology, the RFdiffusion-family registry undercounting observation, and the structured side-by-side instrument mapping) are real and worth highlighting on their own terms rather than burying inside a framing that promises more.
Cite this work
@misc {
title={
(HckPrj) AI-enabled Biological Tool Policy Dashboard
},
author={
Aayushi Vishnoi, Pierce Manlangit, G M M Miftahul Alam Adib, Elena Pedrosa Prats, Georgie Phildora Hau Sorensen
},
date={
4/26/26
},
organization={Apart Research},
note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},
howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}
}


