Genetics as Weapons
Navigating the New Age of Bio-Tech Warfare
Last week, we saw Congress express concerns over Chinese weaponization of its biotech firms.
Biological warfare is not new; even prehistoric tribes used poison-dipped weapons.
In the 20th century, several efforts were made to prevent and limit the use of biological agents in warfare. Unfortunately those conventions haven’t been exactly successful, and advancements in biological agents continued.
I remember hearing a lot at the turn of the millennia that if the 20th century was an era of rapid advancements in Physics, the 21st century would belong to Biology.
Coupling advancements in biology with other disciplines—particularly artificial intelligence—could rapidly advance weapons of frightening capabilities.
China's Civil-Military Fusion: Blurring Lines for Rapid Advancement
As I mentioned, prompting this article was the congressional discussion around China’s civil-military fusion strategy and its application to the biotech sector. The program is an ambitious national project designed to eliminate the barriers between civilian research and military application.
By integrating these spheres, China accelerates its technological innovation, leveraging advancements in biotechnology for potential military use.
The involvement of Chinese biotech firms in this strategy raises pivotal questions about the nature of their research and its applications.
The Ethical Quagmire of Hyper-Personalized Biological Weapons
My biggest concern around biological weapons is the application of AI to allow hyperpersonalization of biological agents
Hyperpersonalization represents a frontier in biological warfare, employing artificial intelligence to design agents that target specific genetic markers.
This technology, in theory, could enable the creation of pathogens that incapacitate or eliminate individuals based on their genetic profiles—turning genetics into a weapon against specific populations or even individuals.
With their campaign of target assassinations against political dissidents, it’s not a stretch to imagine Russia or North Korea developing and using hyperpersonalized biological weapons.
Imagine how much more effective the Skripal poisoning would have been with a more targeted agent—and imagine how much harder it would have been for authorities to trace it and determine what happened. And, imagine how damned impossible it would be to prevent such attacks.
A Case Study in Potential Misuse: The Uyghur Crisis
While these advanced biological agents could allow assassinations of individuals, they could also allow ethnic cleansing and genocides at scales never before seen.
Fears of such technology are pronounced in the context of China's treatment of the Uyghur population.
Accusations of human rights abuses and cultural genocide highlight a dark potential: that hyper-personalized biological weapons could serve as tools of oppression against marginalized groups, targeting them with lethal precision.
Navigating the Minefield: Technology, Ethics, and International Law
The development of hyper-personalized biological weapons opens a Pandora's box of technological and ethical dilemmas. The science of targeting specific genetic markers raises profound questions about the potential for abuse, discrimination, and unintended consequences. Moreover, these technologies challenge the existing frameworks of international law, which struggle to keep pace with such rapid advancements.
The international community faces a critical challenge in responding to these emerging threats. Strategies for defense include reinforcing biosecurity measures, advocating for genetic privacy protections, and fostering international collaboration to regulate the use of biotechnology.
The goal is to harness the benefits of these scientific breakthroughs while preventing their misuse in the theater of war.
To the United States’ credit, we’ve commited ourselves to not developing offensive biological capabilities. We invest in studying others’ capabilities so that we can better defend ourselves—and this is the right path for us to continue.
(Richard Nixon announced the ban on bioweapons)
Conclusion
As we stand on the cusp of this new era in warfare, the need for vigilance, ethical consideration, and international cooperation has never been more apparent.
The promise of biotechnology holds immense potential for the betterment of humanity.
Yet, without careful oversight, the same tools that can cure diseases might also be weaponized to perpetrate them.
The path forward requires a balanced approach, one that champions innovation while staunchly defending against its exploitation for destructive ends.
Be sure, our adversaries are looking to advance these capabilities, and we must continue to invest in defenses.
Keep building,
Andrew