Generative Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Protein Design Must Consider Repurposing Potential.

Generative artificial intelligence software used for chemical and protein design has repurposing potential. We propose careful discussion in the biotech community on security considerations of such technologies and serious consideration of restrictions to control who can access the software and what applications it is used for.

Understanding Biosafety and Biosecurity in Ukraine.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was accompanied by unfounded Russian allegations of bioweapon activities in Ukraine conducted by the United States and its allies. While false, such allegations can cause substantial damage to disarmament efforts and international cooperation for strengthening disease surveillance and global health security. The purpose of this article is to describe Ukraine's biosafety, biosecurity, and dual-use policies and to provide important context for understanding the unwarranted Russian allegations. Moreover, the analysis of Ukraine's biorisk management system highlights some of the international efforts underway to ensure that life sciences research across the world is conducted safely, securely, and responsibly. With the help of international partners, Ukraine has strengthened its biorisk management governance, as well as identified areas for improvement that it is working to address.

Preventing AI From Creating Biochemical Threats.

We have previously applied our machine learning models for bioactivity and toxicity along with a generative algorithm to develop VX and tens of thousands of analogues. The publication brought attention to the ease of designing chemical warfare agents. In this Viewpoint, we discuss 10 recommendations to prevent future biochemical threats.

Dual Use of Artificial Intelligence-powered Drug Discovery.

An international security conference explored how artificial intelligence (AI) technologies for drug discovery could be misused for de novo design of biochemical weapons. A thought experiment evolved into a computational proof.

Eroding norms over release of self-spreading viruses.

Risky research on lab-modified self-spreading viruses has yet to present credible paths to upsides.

Gray Matters: Exploring Technologists' Perceptions of Dual-Use Potentiality in Emerging Neurotechnology Applications.

In this article, we report on a pilot study examining perceptions of dual use among neurotechnologists and neuroethicists. We carried out 10 semistructured interviews with participants from established universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia about the risks they saw with the new technology and who has responsibility for safely developing it. We used a grounded theory approach to code and develop themes from the data and establish a foundation for analysis. Our findings showed that dual use was not considered binary, but rather multifaceted and fluid, with the commercialization and globalization of the emerging science shifting participants' understandings of what neurotechnologies are considered beneficial and harmful, rendering future uses unknowable.

Building biosecurity for synthetic biology.

The fast-paced field of synthetic biology is fundamentally changing the global biosecurity framework. Current biosecurity regulations and strategies are based on previous governance paradigms for pathogen-oriented security, recombinant DNA research, and broader concerns related to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Many scholarly discussions and biosecurity practitioners are therefore concerned that synthetic biology outpaces established biosafety and biosecurity measures to prevent deliberate and malicious or inadvertent and accidental misuse of synthetic biology's processes or products. This commentary proposes three strategies to improve biosecurity: Security must be treated as an investment in the future applicability of the technology; social scientists and policy makers should be engaged early in technology development and forecasting; and coordination among global stakeholders is necessary to ensure acceptable levels of risk.

The Threat of Synthetic Smallpox: European Perspectives.

This article explores how advances in synthetic biology, and the potential threat of deliberately recreating and spreading smallpox, are affecting the multilateral debate on the remaining variola virus stocks. It draws on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 10 high-profile, European-based experts in biosecurity and synthetic biology. Four overarching themes affecting the retention or destruction debate are discussed, relating to biosecurity, dangerous knowledge, accidental releases, and eradication. We conclude that while synthetic biology seems to affect all the main discourses in the variola stocks debate, a range of views is present and it is not apparent that advances in synthetic biology are causing a shift toward either retention or destruction of the stocks.

Negotiating the dynamics of uncomfortable knowledge: The case of dual use and synthetic biology.

Institutions need to ignore some knowledge in order to function. This is "uncomfortable knowledge" because it undermines the ability of those institutions to pursue their goals (Rayner, 2012). We identify three bodies of knowledge that are relevant to understandings of the dual use threat posed by synthetic biology but are excluded from related policy discussions. We demonstrate how these "unknown knowns" constitute uncomfortable knowledge because they disrupt the simplified worldview that underpins contemporary discourse on the potential misuse of synthetic biology by malign actors. We describe how these inconvenient truths have been systematically ignored and argue that this is because they are perceived as a threat by organisations involved in the promotion of synthetic biology as well as by those involved in managing biosecurity risks. This has led to a situation where concerns about the biosecurity threat posed by synthetic biology are not only exaggerated, but are, more importantly, misplaced. This, in turn, means that related policies are misdirected and unlikely to have much impact. We focus on the dynamics of discussions about synthetic biology and dual use to demonstrate how the same "knowns" that are denied or dismissed as "unknown knowns" in certain circumstances are sometimes mobilised as "known knowns" by the same category of actors in a different context, when this serves to sustain the goals of the individuals and institutions involved. Based on our own experience, we argue that negotiating the dynamics of uncomfortable knowledge is a difficult, but necessary, component of meaningful transdisciplinary collaborations.

Synthetic biology and biosecurity: challenging the "myths".

Synthetic biology, a field that aims to "make biology easier to engineer," is routinely described as leading to an increase in the "dual-use" threat, i.e., the potential for the same scientific research to be "used" for peaceful purposes or "misused" for warfare or terrorism. Fears have been expressed that the "de-skilling" of biology, combined with online access to the genomic DNA sequences of pathogenic organisms and the reduction in price for DNA synthesis, will make biology increasingly accessible to people operating outside well-equipped professional research laboratories, including people with malevolent intentions. The emergence of do-it-yourself (DIY) biology communities and of the student iGEM competition has come to epitomize this supposed trend toward greater ease of access and the associated potential threat from rogue actors. In this article, we identify five "myths" that permeate discussions about synthetic biology and biosecurity, and argue that they embody misleading assumptions about both synthetic biology and bioterrorism. We demonstrate how these myths are challenged by more realistic understandings of the scientific research currently being conducted in both professional and DIY laboratories, and by an analysis of historical cases of bioterrorism. We show that the importance of tacit knowledge is commonly overlooked in the dominant narrative: the focus is on access to biological materials and digital information, rather than on human practices and institutional dimensions. As a result, public discourse on synthetic biology and biosecurity tends to portray speculative scenarios about the future as realities in the present or the near future, when this is not warranted. We suggest that these "myths" play an important role in defining synthetic biology as a "promissory" field of research and as an "emerging technology" in need of governance.

Synthetic biology, security and governance.

The twenty-first century has witnessed an increasing confluence of rapidly advancing science and its embodiment in practical technologies, an extensive global diffusion of the knowledge and capabilities associated with those developments, and a seemingly unending shift in the international security environment. The scope and intensity of these interactions in the life sciences have generated concern about security risks stemming from possible misuse. This lecture focuses on one of the key emerging life science technologies of concern, gene synthesis, and considers how the new risks and challenges it poses for governance can best be managed.

Regulating biorisks: developing a coherent policy logic (part II).

This is the second of two articles that empirically details the working practices of regulators charged with overseeing biological research. The first article considered how regulators from the Biological Agents Unit of the UK Health and Safety Executive went about implementing the British legislation controlling work with biological agents and genetically modified organisms prior to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and the ensuing anthrax letters in the U.S. This second article continues the investigation of the Biological Agents Unit's working practices by considering how its activities have changed and adapted to the new, post-9/11 policy and regulatory environment. The main argument put forward in the articles is that an understanding of the implementation processes--that is, the strategies adopted by regulatory agencies and the styles employed by agency regulators in their interactions with those regulated--is critical to developing a coherent policy logic for the emerging regulatory regime around biorisks.

The American biodefense industry: from emergency to nonemergence.

Since 1998, and especially since the "Amerithrax" emergency of 2001, the United States has ambitiously funded biodefense projects, intending not only to enhance detection and management of any biological-weapons attack but also to establish a robust domestic biodefense industry. I asked if the United States had fulfilled this latter intention. Using the RAND Corporation's RaDiUS database, I examined federal biodefense grants and contracts awarded from 1995 through most of 2005, noting recipient type, awarding unit, funding level, and the disease focus of research-and-development support. Patterns in these data as well as other sources suggest that the biodefense industry as late as 2005 remained in a nascent stage, with most firms small, precariously financed, and more responsive to funders' announcements and solicitations than to opportunities for self-directed innovation. A biodefense industry with investor-capital funding and retained earnings, with its own leading companies, with its own stock analysts, and with its own legitimacy in commercial and financial markets did not emerge over the period studied, nor does its emergence appear imminent.

Rationality, Risk and Response: A Research Agenda for Biosecurity.

This article considers how threats become constituted as problems requiring policy responses, and how one might account for such problematizations and responses. Focusing specifically on the threat from bioterrorism, it draws on a broadly constructivist approach to risk, and highlights how ideas around political rationalities, styles of thought, forms of risk and frameworks of knowledge can be useful in thinking about emerging biosecurity policies. It suggests that a comparative study of Britain and the United States might help to clarify how the threat of bioterrorism is being constructed by various groups, how support for particular 'framings' of the threat is being mobilized and taken up in policy networks, and how this is linked to different courses of action in response to the possibility of bioterrorism.