Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:07:42.902Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What rough beast? Synthetic biology, uncertainty, and the future of biosecurity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Gautam Mukunda ,
Kenneth A. Oye  and
Scott C. Mohr
Gautam Mukunda
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Room E53-470, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 gautam.mukunda@gmail.com
Kenneth A. Oye
Affiliation:
Engineering Systems Division, Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 oye@mit.edu
Scott C. Mohr
Affiliation:
Department of Chemistry, Metcalf Center for Science and Engineering, Boston University, Boston, MA 02215-2521 mohr@bu.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Synthetic biology seeks to create modular biological parts that can be assembled into useful devices, allowing the modification of biological systems with greater reliability, at lower cost, with greater speed, and by a larger pool of people than has been the case with traditional genetic engineering. We assess the offensive and defensive security implications of synthetic biology based on the insights of leading synthetic biologists into how the technology may develop, the projections of practicing biosecurity authorities on changes in the security context and potential security applications of synthetic biology, and joint appraisals of policy relevant sources of uncertainty. Synthetic biology appears to have minimal security implications in the near term, create modest offensive advantages in the medium term, and strengthen defensive capabilities against natural and engineered biological threats and enable novel potential offensive uses in the long term. To maximize defensive and minimize offensive effects of synthetic biology despite uncertainty, this essay suggests a combination of policy approaches, including community-based efforts, regulation and surveillance, further research, and the deliberate design of security and safety features into the technology.

Keywords

synthetic biologybiosecuritybiodefensebiological weapons
Type
Research Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , September 2009 , pp. 2 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

References

1.Tucker, Jonathan B., “A farewell to germs: The U.S. renunciation of biological and toxin warfare, 1969–70,” International Security, Summer 2002, 27 (1): 107–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Wheelis, Mark, “A short history of biological warfare and weapons,” in The Implementation of Legally Binding Measures to Strengthen the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Chevrier, M. I., Chomiczewski, K., Dando, M. R., Garrigue, H., Granaztoi, G., and Pearson, G. S., eds. (Amsterdam: ISO Press, 2003), pp. 15–31.Google Scholar
3.Wheelis, Mark, “Chemical and biological terrorism: Lessons from history,” in International Seminar on Nuclear War and Planetary Emergencies, 31st Session: The Cultural Planetary Emergency. Ragaini, R., ed. (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2004), pp. 110–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Shoham, Dany and Jacobsen, Stuart M., “Technical intelligence in retrospect: The 2001 anthrax letters powder,” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 2007, 20 (1): 79–105.Google Scholar
5.Etc Group, “Extreme genetic engineering: An introduction to synthetic biology,” 2007.Google Scholar
6.Tucker, Jonathan B. and Zilinskas, Raymond A., “The promise and perils of synthetic biology,” The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, Spring 2006: 25–45.Google Scholar
7.Preston, Richard, The Cobra Event (New York: Random House, 1997).Google Scholar
8.Committee on Research Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biology, Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism (Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies, 2004).Google Scholar
9.Office of Transnational Issues, “The darker bioweapons future” (Langley, VA: Central Intelligence Agency, 2003).Google Scholar
10.Tucker, Jonathan B., “Preventing the misuse of biology: Lessons from the oversight of smallpox virus research,” International Security, Fall 2006, 31 (2): 116–150.Google Scholar
11.Wheelis, Mark, “Biotechnology and biochemical weapons,” Nonproliferation Review, Spring 2002, 9 (1): 48–53.Google Scholar
12.Wheelis, Mark, “Will the new biology lead to new weapons,” Arms Control Today July/August 2004, 34 (6): 6–13.Google Scholar
13.Nixdorff, Kathryn, Davison, Neil, Millett, Piers, and Whitby, Simon, “Technology and biological weapons: Future threats,” in Science and Technology Report (College Park, MD: Center for International Security, Studies School of Public Affairs, University of Maryland, 2003).Google Scholar
14.Graham, Bob, Talent, Jim, Allison, Graham, Cleveland, Robin, Rademajer, Steve, Roemer, Tim, Sherman, Wendy, Sokolski, Henry, and Verma, Rich, World at Risk: The Report of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism (New York: Vintage Books, 2008).Google Scholar
15.Cordesman, Anthony H., “When to cry wolf, what to cry, and how to cry it,” in Bioterrorism: Confronting a Complex Threat, Wenger, A. and Wollenmann, R., eds. (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2007), pp. 155–178.Google Scholar
16.Dando, Malcolm, Ibid., “The impact of scientific and technological change,” pp. 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Guillemin, Jeanne, Ibid., “The legacy of secret state programs,” pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
18.Leitenberg, Milton, Ibid., “Evolution of the current threat,” pp. 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Garfinkel, Michele, Endy, Drew, Epstein, Gerald, and Friedman, Robert, Synthetic Genomics: Options for Governance (New York: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, 2007), p. 66.Google Scholar
20.Bügl, Hans, Danner, John P., Molinari, Robert J., Mulligan, John T., Park, Han-Oh, Reichert, Bas, Roth, David A., Wagner, Ralf, Budowle, Bruce, Scripp, Robert M., Smith, Jennifer A.L., Steele, Scott J., Church, George, and Endy, Drew, “DNA synthesis and biological security,” Nature Biotechnology June 2007, 25 (6): 627–629.Google Scholar
21.Tucker, Jonathan B. and Zilinskas, Raymond A., “The promise and perils of synthetic biology,” The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society, Spring 2006: 25–45.Google Scholar
22.Tetlock, Philip E., Expert Political Judgment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
23.Taleb, Nassim Nicholas, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (New York: Random House, 2007).Google Scholar
24.Synthetic biology and biosecurity expert interviews, 2007. Mohr, Scott and Mukunda, Gautam, eds. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
25.Ibid.Google Scholar
26.Keasling, Jay, Overview of the center. NSF Site Visit, Berkeley, CA: SynBERC, February 24, 2009.Google Scholar
27.Entrez Genome Project, Complete genomes. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Accessed July 21, 2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/lproks.cgi.Google Scholar
28.Entrez Genome Project, Properties of eukaryotic genome sequencing projects. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Accessed July 21, 2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genomes/leuks.cgi.Google Scholar
29.National Center for Biotechnology Information, Genbank. National Institutes of Health. Accessed July 21, 2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.Google Scholar
30.Growth of Genbank, 2008. Accessed July 23, 2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/genbankstats.htmlGoogle Scholar
31.National Center for Biotechnology Information, Genbank. National Institutes of Health. Accessed July 21, 2009, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.Google Scholar
32.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
33.Elowitz, Michael B. and Leibler, Stanislas, “A synthetic oscillatory network of transcriptional regulators,” Nature January 20 2000, 403: 335–338.Google Scholar
34.Gardner, Timothy S., Cantor, Charles R., and Collins, James J., “Construction of a genetic toggle switch in escherichia coli,” Ibid.: 339–342.Google Scholar
35.Knight, Thomas, “Idempotent vector design for standard assembly of biobricks,” in MIT Synthetic Biology Working Group (Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003).Google Scholar
36.Wellhausen, Rachel and Mukunda, Gautam, “Aspects of the political economy of development and synthetic biology,” Systems and Synthetic Biology, December 2009, 3 (1–4): 115–123.Google Scholar
37.Synthetic Biology: Scope, Applications and Implications (London: The Royal Academy of Engineering, 2009).Google Scholar
38.Casagrande, Rocco, “Homeland security 2015,” in Homeland Security 2015 (Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, 2006). This section draws heavily on the framework for the development of offensive bioweapons that Casagrande proposed in his article.Google Scholar
39.Preston, Richard, The Demon in the Freezer (New York: Random House, 2002).Google Scholar
40.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
41.Preston, Richard, The Hot Zone (New York: Random House, 1994).Google Scholar
42.Casagrande, , “Homeland security 2015.”Google Scholar
43.Clinehens, Neal A., Aum Shinrikyo and Weapons of Mass Destruction (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Air Command and Staff College, 2000).Google Scholar
44.Sopko, John and Edelman, Alan, “Global proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: A case study on the Aum Shinrikyo,” Staff statement inGlobal Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction; in Hearings, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation, Committee on Governmental Affairs (Washington, DC: United States Senate, Part I, 1996), pp. 47–102.Google Scholar
45.CDC national select agent registry select agent/toxin list, 2008. Accessed July 22, 2009, http://www.selectagents.gov/agentToxinList.htmGoogle Scholar
46.Tumpey, Terrence M., Basler, Christopher F., Aguilar, Patricia V., Zeng, Hui, Solórzano, Alicia, Swayne, David E., Cox, Nancy J., Katz, Jacqueline M., Taubenberger, Jeffrey K., Palese, Peter, and García-Sastre, Adolfo, “Characterization of the reconstructed 1918 Spanish influenza pandemic virus,” Science 7 October 2005, 310: 77–80.Google Scholar
47.Carlson, Robert, “The pace and proliferation of biological technologies,” Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 2003, 1 (3).Google Scholar
48.Garfinkel, et al., p. 66.Google Scholar
49.Casagrande, , “Homeland security 2015.”Google Scholar
50.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
51.Ibid.Google Scholar
52.Cello, Jeronimo, Paul, Aniko V. and Wimmer, Eckard, “Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: Generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template,” Science 9 August 2002, 297: 1016–1018.Google Scholar
53.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
54.Ibid.Google Scholar
55.Mukunda, Gautam and Mohr, Scott, “DNA synthesis, synthetic biology, and biosecurity,” in The proceedings of Synthetic Biology 3.0 (Zurich, Switzerland, 2007).Google Scholar
56.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
57.Casagrande, , “Homeland security 2015.”Google Scholar
58.Ibid.Google Scholar
59.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
60.Ibid.Google Scholar
61.Nowak, Rachel, “Killer virus: An engineered mouse virus leaves us one step away from the ultimate bioweapon,” New Scientist Online News (Melbourne, Australia, 2001).Google Scholar
62.Orendt, Wendy, “A most dangerous game,” Natural History: FindArticles.com (2004).Google Scholar
63.Taleb, .Google Scholar
64.Testbeds, , 2008. Accessed February 21, 2009. http://www.synberc.org/testbeds.htmlGoogle Scholar
65.Berdoy, M., Webster, J. P., and Macdonald, D. W., “Fatal attraction in rats infected with toxoplasma gondii,” Proceedings: Biological Sciences 2000, 267 (1452): 1591–1594.Google Scholar
66.Tucker, Jonathan B., “A farewell to germs: The U.S. renunciation of biological and toxin warfare, 1969–70,” International Security, Summer 2002, 27 (1): 107–148.Google Scholar
67.Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976).Google Scholar
68.Leitenberg, Milton, Leonard, James, and Spertzel, Richard, “Biodefense crossing the line,” Politics and the Life Sciences September 2003, 22 (2): 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69.Dimasi, Joseph A., Hansen, Ronald W. and Grabowski, Henry G., “The price of innovation: New estimates of drug development costs,” Journal of Health Economics March 2003, 22 (2): 151–185.Google Scholar
70.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
71.Ibid.Google Scholar
72.Depalma, Angelo, “Vaccine development aided by new techniques,” GEN: Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News November 1, 2008. Accessed November 17, 2009, http://www.genengnews.com/articles/chitem.aspx?aid=2651Google Scholar
73.Jennings, G.T. and Bachmann, M.F., “Designing recombinant vaccines with viral properties: A rational approach to more effective vaccines,” Current Molecular Medicine 2007, 7: 143–155.Google Scholar
74.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
75.Ibid.Google Scholar
76.Ibid.Google Scholar
77.Mattey, M. and Spencer, J., “Bacteriophage therapy: Cooked goose or phoenix rising?” Current Opinion in Biotechnology 2008, 19: 608–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
78.Rochat, T., Bermudez-Humaran, L.G., Gratadoux, J.J., Fourage, C., Hoebler, C., Corthier, G. and Langella, P., “Anti-inflammatory effects of lactobacillus casei bl23 producing or not a maganese-dependent catalase on dss-induced colitis in mice,” Microbial Cell Factories 2007, 6 (22).Google Scholar
79.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
80.Ibid.Google Scholar
81.Vogel, Kathleen, “Bioweapons proliferation: Where science studies and public policy collide,” Social Studies of Science October 2006, 36 (5): 659–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
82.Vogel, Kathleen, “Biodefense: Considering the sociotechnical dimension,” in Biosecurity interventions: Global Health and Security in Question, Lakoff, A. and Collier, S. J., eds. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), pp. 227–256.Google Scholar
83.Landes, David S., The Wealth and Poverty of Nations: Why Some Are So Rich and Some So Poor (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998), pp. 278–279.Google Scholar
84.Vogel, Kathleen, “Bioweapons proliferation: Where science studies and public policy collide,” Social Studies of Science October 2006, 36 (5): 659–690.Google Scholar
85.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
86.Keasling, .Google Scholar
87.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
88.Ibid.Google Scholar
89.Christensen, Clayton M. and Raynor, Michael E., The Innovator's Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2003).Google Scholar
90.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
91.Details can be found athttp://sb4.biobricks.org/series/.Google Scholar
92.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
93.For example, DIYbio, 2009. Accessed July 21, 2009, http://diybio.org/.Google Scholar
94.Personal observations by the authors.Google Scholar
95.Making a biological counter, 2008. Accessed February 16, 2009, http://io9.com/5049788/making-a-biological-counterGoogle Scholar
96.Bear, Greg, Quantico (New York: Vanguard Press, 2007).Google Scholar
97.Clancy, Tom, Rainbow Six (New York: Penguin Group, 1998).Google Scholar
98.Stern, Jessica, “Dreaded risks and the control of biological weapons,” International Security, Winter 2002/03, 27 (3): 89–123.Google Scholar
99.Project Bioshield Act of 2004, 118 STAT.835. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:pub1276.108.pdfGoogle Scholar
100.Project bioshield: Progress in the war on terror, 2004. Accessed August 28, 2007, http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/bioshield/bioshield2.htmlGoogle Scholar
101.Gilfillan, Lynne, Smith, Bradley T., Inglesby, Thomas V., Kodukula, Krishna, Schuler, Ari, Lister, Mark, and O'Toole, Tara, “Taking the measure of countermeasures: Leaders' views on the nation's capacity to develop biodefense countermeasures,” Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science October 12 2004, 2 (4): 1–8.Google Scholar
102.Vogel, Kathleen, “Biodefense: Considering the sociotechnical dimension,” in Biosecurity Interventions: Global Health and Security in Question, Lakoff, A. and Collier, S. J., eds. (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), pp. 227–256.Google Scholar
103.Koblentz, Gregory, “Pathogens as weapons: The international security implications of biological warfare,” International Security, Winter 2003/04, 28 (3): 84–122.Google Scholar
104.Cordesman, Anthony H., “Biological warfare and the Buffy paradigm,” in CSIS Homeland Defense: Asymmetric Warfare and Terrorism (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2001).Google Scholar
105.Lavoy, Peter R., “Knowledge gaps and threat assessments,” in Bioterrorism: Confronting a Complex Threat, Wenger, Andreas and Wollenmann, Reto, eds. (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2007), pp. 93–118.Google Scholar
106.Chevrier, Marie Isabelle, Ibid.“Why do conclusions from experts vary?” pp. 119–151.Google Scholar
107.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
108.Graham, et al.Google Scholar
109.Dando, Malcolm, “Biologists napping while work militarized,” Nature, August 20, 2009, 460 (7258): 950–951.Google Scholar
110.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
111.Biowarfare for dummies, 2006. Accessed February 16, 2009, http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0682.htmlGoogle Scholar
112.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
113.Fraser, Claire M. and Dando, Malcolm R., “Genomics and future biological weapons: The need for preventive action by the biomedical community,” Nature Genetics 22 October 2001, 29: 253–256.Google Scholar
114.Rappert, Brian, Chevrier, Marie, and Dando, Malcolm, “In-depth implementation of the BTWC: Education and outreach,” in Bradford BTWC Review (Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK, 2006).Google Scholar
115.Guillemin, Jeanne, “Can scientific codes of conduct deter bioweapons?” Audit of the Conventional Wisdom April 2007, (07–06): 1–4.Google Scholar
116.Mozdzanowska, Aleksandra, 2005. Personal communication. Mukunda, Gautam, Ed. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
117.Bügl, Hans, Danner, John P., Molinari, Robert J., Mulligan, John T., Park, Han-Oh, Reichert, Bas, Roth, David A., Wagner, Ralf, Budowle, Bruce, Scripp, Robert M., Smith, Jennifer A.L., Steele, Scott J., Church, George, and Endy, Drew, “DNA synthesis and biological security,” Nature Biotechnology June 2007, 25 (6): 627–629.Google Scholar
118.Ibid.Google Scholar
119.Garfinkel, et al., p. 66.Google Scholar
120.Mohr, and Mukunda, , Interviews.Google Scholar
121.Koblentz, Gregory, “Pathogens as weapons: The international security implications of biological warfare,” International Security, Winter 2003/04, 28 (3): 84–122.Google Scholar
122.Bernstein, Peter L., Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996).Google Scholar
123.Bernstein, Peter L., Capital Ideas: The Improbable Origins of Modern Wall Street (New York: The Free Press, 1992), p. 340.Google Scholar
124.Brent, Roger, In the Valley of the Shadow of Death (Berkeley, CA: National Academy of Sciences, 2005). Accessed November 17, 2009, dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/34914/Valley2006.pdf?…Google Scholar
125.McCray, Lawrence, Oye, Kenneth A., and Petersen, Arthur, “Planned adaptation in risk regulation: A review of US environmental, health, and safety regulation,” Technology Forecasting and Social Change 2009, 76.Google Scholar
126.Ibid.Google Scholar