Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
Sources – Biorisk
Thanks to our experts —
Dr. Kevin M. Esvelt
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Kevin Esvelt is the author of “Delay, Detect, Defend: Preparing for a Future in which Thousands Can Release New Pandemics”, the main document we based this script on. He also kindly answered our questions and fact-checked our work.
Dr. Cassidy Nelson
University of Oxford
– Biotechnology is increasingly everywhere. The cotton in your clothes, the vegetables you eat, your dog. Humans manipulate living things. We use bacteria to produce insulin, connect prosthetics directly with our brains and make industrial enzymes to produce paper. Gene therapy creates cures to previously unsolvable diseases while we are working on food crops resistant to climate change.
Biotechnology is a broad term. It includes everything from the advanced DNA manipulations of Genetically Modified Organisms to the selective breeding we have done for thousands of years on domesticated species. As such, we find it all around us.
#Martha G. Rocha-Munive et al. (2018): “Evaluation of the Impact of Genetically Modified Cotton After 20 Years of Cultivation in Mexico”, Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. Volume 6 - 2018
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2018.00082/full
Quote: “For more than 20 years cotton has been the most widely sown genetically modified (GM) crop in Mexico.”
Quote: “In 1996, GM cotton was for the first time commercially planted in Mexico as well as in five other countries (James, 2016), due to the impossibility of cultivating conventional cotton in areas of severe pest pressure (Terán-Vargas et al., 2005). Since then, a total of 15 countries have commercialized GM cotton (Argentina, Australia, Burma, Brazil, Burkina Faso, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, United States, India, Mexico, Paraguay, Pakistan, South Africa, and Sudan). In Mexico, the increase in GM cotton adoption was gradual (Martínez-Carrillo, 2005), and since 2008 the 96% of the area cultivated with cotton was GM cotton (Purcell et al., 2008).”
#Vanesa Nahirñak et al. (2022): “State of the Art of Genetic Engineering in Potato: From the First Report to Its Future Potential”, Front. Plant Sci. Volume 12 - 2021
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.768233/full
Quote: “Genetically engineered (GE) potato plants, obtained by classical genetic transformation strategies or genome editing tools, with increased resistance to insects, bacteria, fungi, viruses, herbicides, abiotic factors, and/or improved nutritional and post-harvest quality were developed. Also, the production of compounds such as biopharmaceuticals, biopolymers, polyhydroxyalkanoates, spiderweb, freeze-thaw-stable potato starch, increased synthesis of lipids and even vaccines, and human proteins were reported”
#Joshua M. Akey et al. (2010): “Tracking footprints of artificial selection in the dog genome”, PNAS Vol. 107 | No. 3
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909918107
Quote: “Although the domestication of dogs began over 14,000 years ago (4, 5), the spectacular phenotypic diversity exhibited among breeds is thought to have originated much more recently, largely through intense artificial selection and strict breeding practices to perpetuate desired characteristics.”
#Nabih A Baeshen et al. (2014): “Cell factories for insulin production”, Microb Cell Fact. 2014; 13: 141.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4203937/
Quote: “The rapid increase in the number of diabetic patients globally and exploration of alternate insulin delivery methods such as inhalation or oral route that rely on higher doses, is bound to escalate the demand for recombinant insulin in near future. Current manufacturing technologies would be unable to meet the growing demand of affordable insulin due to limitation in production capacity and high production cost. Manufacturing of therapeutic recombinant proteins require an appropriate host organism with efficient machinery for posttranslational modifications and protein refolding. Recombinant human insulin has been produced predominantly using E. coli and Saccharomyces cerevisiae for therapeutic use in human.”
#healthcare-in-europe (2015): “Researchers build brain-machine interface to control prosthetic hand”
https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/researchers-build-brain-machine-interface-to-control-prosthetic-hand.html
Quote: “A research team from the University of Houston has created an algorithm that allowed a man to grasp a bottle and other objects with a prosthetic hand, powered only by his thoughts.
The technique, demonstrated with a 56-year-old man whose right hand had been amputated, uses non-invasive brain monitoring, capturing brain activity to determine what parts of the brain are involved in grasping an object. With that information, researchers created a computer program, or brain-machine interface (BMI), that harnessed the subject's intentions and allowed him to successfully grasp objects, including a water bottle and a credit card. The subject grasped the selected objects 80 percent of the time using a high-tech bionic hand fitted to the amputee's stump.”
#Gabriel W. Vattendahl Vidal et al. (2016): “Review of Brain-Machine Interfaces Used in Neural Prosthetics with New Perspective on Somatosensory Feedback through Method of Signal Breakdown”, Scientifica (Cairo). 2016; 2016: 8956432.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4904116/
Quote: “The brain-machine interface (BMI) used in neural prosthetics involves recording signals from neuron populations, decoding those signals using mathematical modeling algorithms, and translating the intended action into physical limb movement. Recently, somatosensory feedback has become the focus of many research groups given its ability in increased neural control by the patient and to provide a more natural sensation for the prosthetics. This process involves recording data from force sensitive locations on the prosthetics and encoding these signals to be sent to the brain in the form of electrical stimulation. Tactile sensation has been achieved through peripheral nerve stimulation and direct stimulation of the somatosensory cortex using intracortical microstimulation (ICMS).”
#Creative Enzymes (2023): “Application of Enzymes in Pulp and Paper Industry”
https://www.creative-enzymes.com/resource/application-of-enzymes-in-pulp-and-paper-industry_64.html
Quote: “In pulp and paper industry, the most important application of enzymes is in the prebleaching of kraft pulp. Xylanase enzymes have been found to be most effective for this purpose. Enzymes have also been used to increase pulp fibrillation and water retention and to reduce beating time in virgin pulps. With recycled fibers, enzymes have been used for deinking and to restore bonding and increase freeness. Specialized applications include the reduction of vessel picking in tropical hardwood pulps and the selective removal of xylan from dissolving pulp. Enzymes have also been investigated for removal of bark, shives, pitch, and slime and for retting of flax fibers.”
#Thomas Leth Jensen et al. (2021): “Current and Future Prospects for Gene Therapy for Rare Genetic Diseases Affecting the Brain and Spinal Cord”, Front Mol Neurosci. 2021; 14: 695937.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8527017/
Quote: “In recent years, gene therapy has been raising hopes toward viable treatment strategies for rare genetic diseases for which there has been almost exclusively supportive treatment.”
#Nicholas G. Karavolias et al. (2021): “Application of Gene Editing for Climate Change in Agriculture”, Front. Sustain. Food Syst; Sec. Crop Biology and Sustainability.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2021.685801/full
Quote: “Climate change imposes a severe threat to agricultural systems, food security, and human nutrition. Meanwhile, efforts in crop and livestock gene editing have been undertaken to improve performance across a range of traits. Many of the targeted phenotypes include attributes that could be beneficial for climate change adaptation. [...] While only few applications of gene editing have been translated to agricultural production thus far, numerous studies in research settings have demonstrated the potential for potent applications to address climate change in the near future.”
– Our mastery over biology has been speeding up so much that within weeks of the first Covid 19 case the unknown coronavirus was broken down in laboratories and analysed. Scientists generated a copy of its genetic material to create a vaccine that was ready for testing months after the pandemic began. Something unthinkable a decade ago.
The first Covid-19 vaccine was developed very quickly compared to how long it usually takes vaccines to be ready.
#National Institutes of Health Record (2020): “Corbett Recounts Quest for Covid Vaccine”
https://nihrecord.nih.gov/2020/12/11/corbett-recounts-quest-covid-vaccine
Quote: “To appreciate how quickly the VRC vaccine made it to clinical testing, you have to look back at inoculation history and the stages of modern vaccine development. Often it takes 10 to 15 years to put a vaccine in place. The exploratory and pre-clinical stages alone can last up to 6 years or more. Covid-19 couldn’t wait that long.
[...]
The Covid-19 respiratory illness outbreak was reported in Wuhan, China, on Dec. 31, 2019. On Jan. 10, researchers published the sequence of the novel coronavirus that causes covid; 66 days later, on Mar. 16, the VRC vaccine candidate “mRNA-1273,” which was developed in collaboration with biotech firm Moderna, entered phase 1 clinical testing in humans.”
The reason it was possible was thanks to the use of mRNA technology. It is detailed here:
#National Human Genome Research Institute (2023): “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Production”
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/COVID-19-mRNA-Vaccine-Production
Quote: “Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers used state-of-the-art genomic sequencers to quickly sequence the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This sequence was quickly shared with other researchers. This allowed researchers from across the globe to analyze the virus and better understand how it causes disease. The speed of this crucial first step enabled the immediate research and development of viable vaccine candidates.”
– Where is all this sudden progress coming from? Well, it's complicated. But in a nutshell: really expensive things got cheap and knowledge of how to do impressive things spread freely.
The Human Genome Project starting in 1990 was the first major attempt to read human DNA in its entirety. 13 years and $3 billion later, it was complete. By then the cost of decoding a human genome had fallen to about $100 million. Today it is 100,000 times cheaper, costing only about $1000.
#National Human Genome Research Institute (2023): “The Cost of Sequencing a Human Genome”
https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/COVID-19-mRNA-Vaccine-Production
Quote: “The originally projected cost for the U.S.'s contribution to the HGP was $3 billion; in actuality, the Project ended up taking less time (~13 years rather than ~15 years) and requiring less funding - ~$2.7 billion.”
Here is a the estimated cost of chart on how much the cost of sequencing a human genome has fallen:
#Kevin M. Esvelt (2022): “Delay, Detect, Defend: Preparing for a Future in which Thousands Can Release New Pandemics”, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
– How is that possible? Converting DNA into computer data and then studying it used to be a super tedious process, taking expert humans around 3 years of manual work. Today it takes about two weeks and is almost completely automated.
In the 1990s, DNA sequencing used first generation machines like the AB370 by Applied Biosystems , and it involved a lot of manual labour.
#What is biotechnology? (2023): “Computers, Databases and Automation”
https://www.whatisbiotechnology.org/index.php/exhibitions/sanger/mechanisation
Quote: “The project to build the first automated DNA sequencer was headed by Lloyd M Smith, with the collaboration of Michael and Timothy Hunkapillar, two brothers. They were supported by private money mainly from a start-up company, Applied Biosystems, set up by Hood. The machine took five years to construct. It was closely modelled on Sanger's original, manual sequencing process. A technician needed to pour gel into the space between two glass plates set less than a millimetre apart. Once this gel had set, the technician loaded the DNA on to slabs of gel in a number of lanes ready for separation and analysis by the machine”.
This page explains the general methodology:
#What is biotechnology? (2023): “DNA Sequencing”
Quote: “DNA sequencing provides the means to know how nucleotide bases are arranged in a piece of DNA. Several methods have been developed for this process. These have four key steps. In the first instance DNA is removed from the cell. This can be done either mechanically or chemically. The second phase involves breaking up the DNA and inserting its pieces into vectors, cells that indefinitely self-replicate, for cloning. In the third phase the DNA clones are placed with a dye-labelled primer (a short stretch of DNA that promotes replication) into a thermal cycler, a machine which automatically raises and lowers the temperature to catalyse replication. The final phase consists of electrophoresis, whereby the DNA segments are placed in a gel and subjected to an electrical current which moves them. Originally the gel was placed on a slab, but today it is inserted into a very thin glass tube known as a capillary. When subjected to an electrical current the smaller nucleotides in the DNA move faster than the larger ones. Electrophoresis thus helps sort out the DNA fragments by their size.”
And here is what the first generation machines, as used in the Human Genome Project, looked like:
#Science Museum Group Collection (2023): “Prototype Automated DNA Gene Sequencer”
Progress since then has been incredible.
#Biogene (2016): “Brief Introduction on Three Generations of Genome Sequencing Technology”
Quote: “The turn-around time of the second generation sequencing technology to complete a human genome project can just be one week, while that using the first generation sequencing technology to achieve the same goal is three years.”
#Cambridge Children’s Hospital (2023): “Genomics”
Quote: “By sequencing the genome of both a child and their parents, researchers have been able to identify within just two weeks whether a child suffers from a genetic disorder – previously this has sometimes taken years.”
– What has sped up the process even more is that information in the field is shared widely and freely. Cutting-edge discoveries now take just about a year to be copied in laboratories around the world, a few years for anyone with a biology background to work out, and a bit over a decade for high school students to experiment with them in schools.
#Kevin M. Esvelt (2022): “Delay, Detect, Defend: Preparing for a Future in which Thousands Can Release New Pandemics”, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/doc/gcsp-geneva-paper-29-22
Quote: “The recent democratisation of biotechnology suggests that they have broadly succeeded: the typical advance made in a cutting edge laboratory by individuals with doctorates has required just one year to be reproduced in other laboratories, three years to be adapted for use in other contexts, five years to be reproduced by undergraduates and
individuals with moderate skills, and 12-13 years to become accessible to high school students and others with low skills and resources”
– Imagine that your local computer repair shop could build a pristine Iphone 11 with just the parts lying around, and that teenagers are asked to build a new Iphone 5 for homework. Not a crappy homemade version, the real thing. This is what is going on right now in biotechnology – a true revolution.
There’s been a lot of iPhones, especially in recent years. It’s easy to forget that ‘old models’ weren’t released really that long ago.
#Know Your Mobile (2022): “Every iPhone Released To Date: Apple’s iPhone Models By Year (LIST)”,
https://www.knowyourmobile.com/phones/every-single-iphone-released-to-date-a-complete-list-updated/
Quote: “iPhone Release Date – June 29, 2007
iPhone 3G Release Date – June 9, 2008
iPhone 3Gs Release Date – June 19, 2009
iPhone 4 Release Date – 24 June 2010
iPhone 4s Release Date – 14 October 2011
iPhone 5 Release Date – 21 September 2012
iPhone 5s Release Date – 20 September 2013
iPhone 5c Release Date – 20 September 2013
iPhone 6 & iPhone 6 Plus Release Date – 25 September 2014
iPhone 6s & 6s Plus Release Date – 25 September 2015
iPhone SE Release Date – March 31, 2016
iPhone 7 & 7 Plus Release Date – 25 September 2016
iPhone 8 & 8 Plus Release Date – 22 September 2017
iPhone X Release Date – 3 November 2017
iPhone XR Release Date – 26 October 2018
iPhone XS Release Date – 21 September 2018
iPhone XS Max Release Date – 21 September 2018
iPhone 11 Release Date – 20 September 2019
iPhone 11 Pro Release Date – 20 September 2019
iPhone 11 Pro Max Release Date – 20 September 2019
iPhone SE (2020) Release Date – April 24, 2020
iPhone 12 Release Date – October 23, 2020
iPhone 12 Mini Release Date – November 13, 2020
iPhone 12 Pro Release Date – November 13, 2020
iPhone 12 Pro Max Release Date – November 13, 2020
iPhone 13 Release Date – September 24, 2021
iPhone 13 Mini Release Date – September 24, 2021
iPhone 13 Pro Release Date – September 24, 2021
iPhone 13 Pro Max Release Date – September 24, 2021
iPhone SE 3 Release Date – March 8, 2022
iPhone 14 Release Date – September 16, 2022
iPhone 14 Plus Release Date – September 16, 2022
iPhone 14 Pro Release Date – September 16, 2022
iPhone 14 Pro Max Release Date – September 16, 2022”
– Here is the scenario that security experts are getting worried about: Biotechnology becomes cheap enough, and the equipment so easy to use, that hundreds of thousands of people start researching viruses. They pick up wild viruses to try to identify them or start running experiments like combining known viruses. The mass of data they produce runs unfiltered to the public.
There is plenty of easily accessible data online on how to study viruses and which ones are dangerous.
#Susan Payne (2017): “Methods to Study Viruses”, Viruses. 37–52
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7149989/
Quote: “This chapter describes methods for growing, purifying, counting, and characterizing viruses. It also provides general principles of diagnostic virology. [...] Techniques that identify specific viral proteins or genomes provide ways to rapidly identify viruses. Some of these assays can be used at the bedside, or in the field. Powerful and inexpensive DNA sequencing technologies are being used to identify new viruses, many of which could not be found by other methods. The challenge is to understand how or if these viruses impact their hosts.”
Here is an open database on viruses DNA:
#National Library of Medicine (2023): “Viral Genomes”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/viruses/
– For all the good biotech will do for us, in the near future it also could easily kill many millions of people, in the worst case hundreds of millions. Worse than any nuclear bomb.
Biotechnology is a ‘dual-use’ technology that can do both good and harm, as described here:
#National Research Council (US) Committee on a New Government-University Partnership for Science and Security. (2007): “Science and Security in a Post 9/11 World: A Report Based on Regional Discussions Between the Science and Security Communities.”, Biosecurity and Dual-Use Research in the Life Sciences
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11496/
Quote: “In the life sciences, dual-use research “encompasses biological research with legitimate scientific purpose, the results of which may be misused to pose a biologic threat to public health and/or national security.” Generally, the term tends to refer to technologies that have both a civilian and a military use. The dual-use research dilemma in the life sciences refers to the conundrum of producing and publishing research within the life sciences that is directed toward or intended to improve public health, animal health, or agricultural productivity, but that in the hands of a rogue state, terrorist group, or individual, could be used to impair public health.”
The consequences of misuse can be dire. Millions could die due to a single artificial virus.
#Kevin M. Esvelt (2022): “Delay, Detect, Defend: Preparing for a Future in which Thousands Can Release New Pandemics”, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/doc/gcsp-geneva-paper-29-22
Quote: “For 77 years, the international community has successfully kept nuclear
weapons from falling into the hands of non-state actors. The anticipated proliferation of access to pandemic-class agents will far exceed the worst case nuclear proliferation scenario. If current trends continue for the next decade, tens of thousands of individuals will obtain the power to single-handedly kill millions.”
For comparison, a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia would kill 51 million people directly for 210 warheads. That is about 242,000 people per nuclear attack.
#Matthew G. McKinzie et al. (2001): “The US Nuclear War Plan: a time for change”, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/us-nuclear-war-plan-report.pdf
Quote: “We used actual data about U.S. forces and Russian targets to approximate a major
counterforce SIOP scenario. Our analysis showed that the United States could achieve high damage levels against Russian nuclear forces with an arsenal of about 1,300 warheads—less than any of the proposals for a START III treaty. According to our findings, such an attack would destroy most of Russia’s nuclear capabilities and cause 11 to 17 million civilian casualties, 8 to 12 million of which would be fatalities.
Our analysis concluded that in excess of 50 million casualties could be inflicted upon Russia in a “limited” countervalue attack. That attack used less than three percent of the current U.S. nuclear forces, which includes over 7,000 strategic nuclear warheads.”
– The world just witnessed how fast the novel coronavirus spread. We still do not know for sure if it came from nature or was the result of an accidental leak from a lab working with corona viruses, that’s still subject to scientific debate. In the end at least 7 million people died. And this was still a relatively mild virus that didn’t cause serious disease in most of those infected. But that might change in the future.
Wherever the last pandemic came from, the next one might very well be our own fault – in a sense, many things going on in biotechnology could lead to this. Most of all how easy it is to work with dangerous viruses.
Here is a live counter for the number of coronavirus deaths so far:
#Worldometers (2023): “Covid-19 Pandemic”
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
The risk of dying to Covid-19 after getting infected is difficult to estimate, but it ranges from under 0.1% for healthy 20-year-olds to 1.5% for a 60-year-old man with obesity and hypertension.
#The Economist (2023): “See how age and illnesses change the risk of dying from covid-19”
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/covid-pandemic-mortality-risk-estimator
Based on Covid-19 Research Database data (https://covid19researchdatabase.org/)
The origin of the Covid-19 pandemic is still hotly debated. The prevailing theory is that it spilled over from wild animals into people at a Wuhan wet market, but a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology nearby has not been ruled out either.
#MICHAEL WOROBEY et al. (2022): “The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan was the early epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic”, Science Vol. 377 No. 6609
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715
Quote: “As 2019 turned into 2020, a coronavirus spilled over from wild animals into people, sparking what has become one of the best documented pandemics to afflict humans. However, the origins of the pandemic in December 2019 are controversial. Worobey et al. amassed the variety of evidence from the City of Wuhan, China, where the first human infections were reported. These reports confirm that most of the earliest human cases centered around the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market.”
#Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions (2022): “An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic”
https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/report_an_analysis_of_the_origins_of_covid-19_102722.pdf
Quote: “ Experts have put forward two dominant theories on the origins of the virus. The first theory is that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a natural zoonotic spillover. The second theory is that the virus infected humans as a consequence of a research-related incident.”
– Thousands of scientists can simply order the DNA of infectious virus samples online to experiment with them. Assembling these into an artificial virus in 2023 costs about as much as a new car, including all the lab equipment.
#Kevin M. Esvelt (2022): “Delay, Detect, Defend: Preparing for a Future in which Thousands Can Release New Pandemics”, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/doc/gcsp-geneva-paper-29-22
Quote: “DNA constructs of length sufficient to generate infectious 1918 influenza virus can now be obtained for US$1,500; coronaviruses cost approximately US$2,000, but typically
must be enzymatically stitched together by hand prior to virus generation, limiting (for now) the number of capable individuals to those also skilled at modern biotechnology. The laboratory equipment and reagents required for these tasks can typically be obtained for less than US$50,000.”
– At the same time, other scientists are trying to find viruses that hide nature, like in wild apes or bats. There are probably plenty of potentially deadly pandemics out there. Virus hunters take samples back to the lab to learn whether the newly discovered viruses are likely to spread in humans and catalogue the danger. When a biologist discovers a new virus, they usually immediately publish its genetic data to the public. Journals are eager to share descriptions of potentially dangerous viruses.
‘Virus hunters’ try to find viruses in the wild before they jump into human hosts, potentially causing a pandemic like Covid-19 or worse. They focus their efforts in areas where humans are in contact with wild animals like bats.
#Smithsonian Magazine (2020): “The Virus Hunters”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-hunt-viruses-animals-before-strike-humans-180975081/
Quote: “Almost two-thirds of human diseases originate in animals. Measles, first described in the ninth century, is thought to have come from cattle. HIV most likely leapt into our world via monkeys and apes in the 20th century. The most terrifying epidemics of the past generation—West Nile virus, SARS, MERS, Ebola—began when an animal pathogen found its way into a human.
Once or twice a year, a “spillover” of an animal pathogen into people ignites a new infectious human disease. It’s possible there are many more such eruptions in which an animal pathogen flares briefly to life in one or several people and then dies out—either because the virus isn’t well adapted for human spread, or because the infected people live in isolated places and don’t have high levels of contact with others. By one estimate, there are more than 827,000 viruses in the animal world that have the potential to infect humans. We encourage these spillovers whenever we cut roads through the wilderness, clear forests to grow crops, catch wildlife to sell as trophies or butcher for food, or pen chickens and swine in places where bats and wild birds can mingle with them.”
This good-intentioned effort is not done with any security risk in mind.
#Kevin M. Esvelt (2022): “Delay, Detect, Defend: Preparing for a Future in which Thousands Can Release New Pandemics”, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/doc/gcsp-geneva-paper-29-22
Quote: “Security concerns are less salient in the current culture of the life sciences, as evidenced by the number of projects explicitly intending to create, identify, and publicly share a list of viruses ranked by apparent threat level.”
Here is an example of a publication detailing how an open-source tool helps scientists find and identify which viruses are mostly likely to cause a pandemic in humans:
#Zoë L. Grange et al. (2021): “Ranking the risk of animal-to-human spillover for newly discovered viruses”, PNAS Vol. 118 No. 15
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2002324118
Quote: “The recent emergence and spread of zoonotic viruses, including Ebola virus and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, demonstrate that animal-sourced viruses are a very real threat to global public health. Virus discovery efforts have detected hundreds of new animal viruses with unknown zoonotic risk. We developed an open-source risk assessment to systematically evaluate novel wildlife-origin viruses in terms of their zoonotic spillover and spread potential. Our tool will help scientists and governments assess and communicate risk, informing national disease prioritization, prevention, and control actions. The resulting watchlist of potential pathogens will identify targets for new virus countermeasure initiatives, which can reduce the economic and health impacts of emerging diseases.”
– Other labs go further and make viruses more dangerous. They combine and mutate different viruses to understand which mutations make them more likely to spread between humans or make them deadlier than their original forms. And again, these results are shared freely. All while synthetic DNA and equipment to rebuild these viruses are sold online to anyone without any or very little tracking.
We are talking of ‘gain of function’ research. Researchers give viruses new abilities that they do not naturally have - with the reasoning that random mutations might grant them those abilities anyway in the future. It’s a controversial sort of research that’s been limited to only a few laboratories, but the risks they create are unacceptable to many people, which has led to multiple moratoriums halting their work.
#National Research Council; Institute of Medicine. (2015): “Gain-of-Function Research: Background and Alternatives”, Potential Risks and Benefits of Gain-of-Function Research
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK285579/
Quote: “During Session 3 of the symposium, Dr. Yoshihiro Kawaoka, from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, classified types of GoF research depending on the outcome of the experiments. The first category, which he called “gain of function research of concern,” includes the generation of viruses with properties that do not exist in nature. The now famous example he gave is the production of H5N1 influenza A viruses that are airborne-transmissible among ferrets, compared to the non-airborne transmissible wild type. The second category deals with the generation of viruses that may be more pathogenic and/or transmissible than the wild type viruses but are still comparable to or less problematic than those existing in nature. Kawaoka argued that the majority of strains studied have low pathogenicity, but mutations found in natural isolates will improve their replication in mammalian cells. Finally, the third category, which is somewhere in between the two first categories, includes the generation of highly pathogenic and/or transmissible viruses in animal models that nevertheless do not appear to be a major public health concern. An example is the high-growth A/PR/8/34 influenza strain found to have increased pathogenicity in mice but not in humans. During the discussion, Dr. Thomas Briese, Columbia University, further described GoF research done in the laboratory as being a “proactive” approach to understand what will eventually happen in nature.”
#Nature (2023): “Stricter US guidelines for ‘gain-of-function’ research are on the way — maybe”
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00257-0
Quote: “The NSABB report is the culmination of a process that began more than a decade ago amid an uproar over a pair of publications describing how researchers had engineered influenza viruses to become more transmissible in order to understand how they might evolve in the wild. In response, in 2014 the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) abruptly halted funding for around two dozen projects involving such ‘gain-of-function’ research that could enhance a pathogen’s transmissibility or deadliness.
The agency lifted the moratorium in December 2017, after the HHS proposed a new framework that included extended review of research involving certain pathogens that have the potential to start a pandemic. Since then, only three projects — all of which involved influenza-virus research — have undergone the official review process put in place by the HHS.”
– As the tools of biotechnology get ever more cheaper and easy to use and the data on dangerous viruses keeps multiplying, it is only a matter of time before a well-meaning scientist shares blueprints for the equivalent nuclear bomb of viruses, a superbug that will cause millions of deaths – and someone else uses it. Maybe because they have bad intentions, maybe because they are irresponsible or sloppy. We are creating an environment in which it is increasingly easy for anyone to create a weaponized virus in their backyard.
#Kevin M. Esvelt (2022): “Delay, Detect, Defend: Preparing for a Future in which Thousands Can Release New Pandemics”, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/doc/gcsp-geneva-paper-29-22
Quote: “Under the current system, a scientist who warns the world of a pandemic-class agent inadvertently provides widespread access to skilled "lone wolf" actors who rely on commercial DNA synthesis, as well as well-resourced actors who do not”
#Bristows (2020): “DIY gene-editing CRISPR kits”
https://www.bristows.com/news/diy-gene-editing-crispr-kits/
Quote: “Editing genomes is immensely difficult, but as prices drop and gene-editing expertise becomes more accessible, DIY CRISPR kits have become freely available online for as little as 159 USD. They enable citizen scientists, including so-called “biohackers”, to solve problems that have foxed the professionals, make genetic discoveries, much as amateur astronomers add to the tally of known exoplanets, and devise novel applications. One such kit, on sale by The Odin, a company founded by biohacker and ex-NASA scientist Josiah Zayner, is said to contain everything needed to make precision genome edits in bacteria, all in the comfort and privacy of one’s own home (or garage).”
Quote: “For now, the only real thing stopping determined people from modifying organisms (human and non-human) is the fiendish complexity of the process. Indeed, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) has placed assessing the risks posed by DIY gene editing kits on the backburner, particularly in light of more pressing gene-editing issues. It has, however, advised that the risk assessment should be revised, should further information indicate that the distribution of such DIY kits extends more widely across the EU.”
– This is not the first time we had a challenge like that and we are not helpless – think of nuclear technology. Something extremely powerful and dangerous with huge upsides and downsides. Nuclear was born from weapon programs so its creators were always aware of the potential for their knowledge to be abused. From the very beginning it was clear that knowledge in this field and access to the technology needed to be handled with utmost care.
The first nuclear power-plant connected to an electrical grid became operational in 1954. The first bomb was a massive, secret push to advance nuclear technology under the 1942-1945 Manhattan Project.
#Encyclopedia Britannica (2023): “Manhattan Project”
https://www.britannica.com/event/Manhattan-Project
Quote: “Manhattan Project, U.S. government research project (1942–45) that produced the first atomic bombs. [...]
By the summer of 1945, amounts of plutonium-239 sufficient to produce a nuclear explosion had become available from the Hanford Works, and weapon development and design were sufficiently far advanced so that an actual field test of a nuclear explosive could be scheduled. Such a test was no simple affair. Elaborate and complex equipment had to be assembled so that a complete diagnosis of success or failure could be had. By this time the original $6,000 authorized for the Manhattan Project had grown to $2 billion.”
#Stanford (2015): “Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant”
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph241/morrissey2/
Quote: “Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant was commissioned by the Soviet Union on June 27, 1954 and operated successfully for almost five decades, until it was closed on April 29, 2002. [...]
With only one 5MWt reactor, this plant was not meant to solve the riddle of Soviet power, nor was it constructed to give the Soviets a leg up in the Cold War. [4] Instead the plant was built as an experiment for commercial electricity. Could a reactor be used to supply the commercial grid with energy? Obninsk proved that it could.”.
International treaties enforce ‘anti-proliferation’ efforts that do as much as possible to prevent random people from building nuclear bombs on their own. The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty binds 191 nations.
#United Nations (2023): “Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)”
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/
Quote: “The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.”
Because of this history, nuclear scientists are keenly aware of how their knowledge can be misused.
#Kevin M. Esvelt (2022): “Delay, Detect, Defend: Preparing for a Future in which Thousands Can Release New Pandemics”, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/doc/gcsp-geneva-paper-29-22
Quote: “In nuclear physics, the proliferative consequences of discovering a much more accessible path to nuclear weapons would be immediately obvious to the inventors, who would never consider publicly sharing the information.”
– So a lot of effort has gone into making sure no radioactive material disappears from sight or that countries don’t try to hide weapons development behind energy programs. The result hasn’t been perfect but considering the 411 nuclear power stations running today, we’ve been very successful. Likewise, no researcher would think to share data on how to turn common laboratory equipment into bomb-making machines on the internet.
#World Nuclear Association (2021): “Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Proliferation”
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx
Quote: “Most countries participate in international initiatives designed to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The international safeguards system has since 1970 successfully prevented the diversion of fissile materials into weapons. Its scope has been widened to address undeclared nuclear activities.
The IAEA undertakes regular inspections of civil nuclear facilities and audits the movement of nuclear materials through them.
Safeguards are backed by diplomatic and economic measures.”
#IAEA (2023): “Nuclear Power Capacity Trend”
https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/worldtrendnuclearpowercapacity.aspx
– First we need to delay the next deadly pandemic by getting a grip on how we treat dangerous viruses. Virus DNA data should be treated as an infohazard: information that poses a danger to society if it is shared without care. In other words, not just anyone should be able to order dangerous DNA online. And if you do, you should be tracked, so it becomes much harder for the wrong people to access the really spicy stuff.
#Kevin M. Esvelt (2022): “Delay, Detect, Defend: Preparing for a Future in which Thousands Can Release New Pandemics”, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/doc/gcsp-geneva-paper-29-22
Quote: “The basic principles governing atomic and thermonuclear weapons are widely known, but exact blueprints and details about enrichment processes are closely held and difficult to reproduce. The higher the barriers to rogue states and especially to non-state groups seeking to develop the weapons, the better. The same is true for pandemics: scientists should not perform and openly publish experiments that would credibly identify pandemic class agents because doing so would unavoidably hand blueprints to rogue states, extremists, and zealots who may not be able to identify such agents on their own. Nations should similarly hesitate to identify pandemic-class pathogens even if they think they can keep the results out of the public domain.
First, it would be extremely difficult to privately utilize the information for protective purposes. Second, any such classified programmes would appear to be weapons-related if any indication of their existence became known. Finally, even highly classified information can
seldom be protected forever”
#Gregory Lewis et al. (2019): “Information Hazards in Biotechnology”, Risk Analysis Vol. 39 Issue 5
https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Lewis_et_al-2019-Risk_Analysis.pdf
Quote: “With the advance of biotechnology, biological information, rather than biological materials, is increasingly the object of principal security concern. We argue that both in theory and in practice, existing security approaches in biology are poorly suited to manage hazardous biological information, and use the cases of Mousepox, H5N1 gain of function, and Botulinum toxin H to highlight these ongoing challenges. We suggest that mitigation of these hazards can be improved if one can: (1) anticipate hazard potential before scientific work is performed; (2) consider how much the new information would likely help both good and bad actors; and (3) aim to disclose information in the manner that maximally disadvantages bad actors versus good ones.”
– The next step is detecting the danger by becoming aware which viruses are out there and are spreading explosively between humans. This could be as easy as having labs in population centres maintain virus detectors that monitor what is going on in the micro world. If we suddenly see certain microorganisms show up a lot in a short time, we can react quickly and start counter measures.
Because viruses need to quickly proliferate in large numbers, we can detect them even if we don’t start out knowing what to look for.
#Kevin M. Esvelt (2022): “Delay, Detect, Defend: Preparing for a Future in which Thousands Can Release New Pandemics”, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/doc/gcsp-geneva-paper-29-22
Quote: “All pandemic-class agents are encoded by nucleic acids and exhibit exponential growth on some timescale. Therefore, any system capable of detecting exponentially growing patterns of nucleic acid fragments should be capable of reliably detecting any and all catastrophic biothreats, including stealthy agents analogous to HIV that might otherwise infect most of humanity before exhibiting any visible clinical effects63. A nucleic acid observatory that performs untargeted metagenomic sequencing of all nucleic acids across
relevant human and natural ecosystems would serve as a reliable early warning system, one that neither adversaries nor natural pandemics could evade.”
– Which is the final step: Destroy. We basically need to build a machine that is ready to destroy any pandemic threat before it has a chance to take over. We can do this with new tools that are being developed right now, like nanofilters that pull dangers out of the air we breathe or specialized UV lamps that just kill any virus before it has a chance to jump from person to person. And of course, we need to get better at creating new vaccines ready faster than ever before in history.
#Kevin M. Esvelt (2022): “Delay, Detect, Defend: Preparing for a Future in which Thousands Can Release New Pandemics”, Geneva Centre for Security Policy
https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/doc/gcsp-geneva-paper-29-22
Quote: “Goal: eliminate the virus while providing food, water, power, law enforcement, and healthcare
• Develop and distribute pandemic-proof protective equipment for all essential workers
• Comfortable, stylish, durable powered respirators must be proven to work reliably
• Foster resilient supply chains, local production, and behavioural outbreak control
• Strengthen systems and offer individualised early warning to block transmission
• Develop and install germicidal low-wavelength lights, which appear to be harmless to humans
• Overhead fixtures can reduce airborne and surface pathogens by >90 per cent in seconds”
#Ali A. Jazie et al. (2021): “A review on recent trends of antiviral nanoparticles and airborne filters: special insight on COVID-19 virus”, Air Qual Atmos Health PMC8211456
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8211456/
Quote: “The ventilation and airborne filters are also investigated aiming to develop an efficient antiviral filtration technology. Human secretion of the infected person as nasal or saliva droplets goes as airborne and distributes the virus everywhere around the person. N95 and N98 filters are the must use filters for capturing particles of sizes around 300 nm. The average size of the novel corona virus (COVID-19) is 100 nm and there is no standard or special filter suitable for this virus. The nanoparticle-coated airborne filter is a suitable technique in this regard. While the efficiency of this type of filters still needs to be enhanced, new developed nanofiber filters are proposed. Most recently, the charged nanofiber filters of sizes below 100 nm are developed and provide an efficient viral filtration and inactivation.”
#US FDA (2021): “UV Lights and Lamps: Ultraviolet-C Radiation, Disinfection, and Coronavirus”
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx
Quote: “Given the current outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, consumers may be interested in purchasing ultraviolet-C (UVC) lamps to disinfect surfaces in the home or similar spaces. The FDA is providing answers to consumers’ questions about the use of these lamps for disinfection during the COVID-19 pandemic.
[...]
UVC radiation is a known disinfectant for air, water, and nonporous surfaces. UVC radiation has effectively been used for decades to reduce the spread of bacteria, such as tuberculosis. For this reason, UVC lamps are often called "germicidal" lamps.
UVC radiation has been shown to destroy the outer protein coating of the SARS-Coronavirus, which is a different virus from the current SARS-CoV-2 virus. The destruction ultimately leads to inactivation of the virus.”