Many other points were covered in the comment, including survey responses, which add more color to researchers' attitudes (n=54; ~75% European respondents).

We value feedback from both scientists and policy researchers—please reach out!

We also express concern about the present lack of incentives or straightforward mechanisms to obtain substantive input from scientists on policy matters related to chem-bio AI models. This is a fundamental challenge that we'll need to address in the years to come.

One issue we draw attention to is that claims of potential biosecurity risks have been used and could continue to be used as a pretext to delay or withhold from sharing a model or method to advance a commercial interest.

Our goal was to share perspectives and considerations that represent the views of Rosetta Commons and the broader biomolecular structure analysis, prediction, and design communities. It was supplemented by scientists' input solicited via a workshop, roundtable discussion, and survey.

Earlier this week, members of the Rosetta Commons (@rosettacommons.bsky.social) community and I submitted a public comment in response to the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology's Request for Information on Safety Considerations for Chemical and/or Biological AI Models.

As of Nov 12, with the introduction of H.B. 2662 in Pennsylvania, the number of electoral votes of states that have enacted or are considering National Popular Vote Interstate Compact bills surpassed 269.