The CRISPR gene editing technique has come into the spotlight after scientists reported that they have used it to safely remove disease from human embryos for the first time. This was followed by the CRISPR fever, which has been going on for several years now, and the number of scientific publications on this topic is growing steadily.
There are good reasons for the increased focus on CRISPR. This technique allows scientists to "cut and paste" DNA more easily than ever. It has applications ranging from cancer treatment to insect-borne disease control.
Some of these uses, such as the creation of mosquitoes that can resist the parasite that causes malaria, inevitably lead to ecosystem reconfiguration. Therefore, CRISPR raises many ethical and safety concerns. Some are also concerned that the applications being studied by defense organizations interested in "innovative applications" should serve as a wake-up call to other states.
There are also concerns that gene editing could be used in the development of biological weapons. In 2016, Bill Gates noted that "the next epidemic could occur on a computer screen with terrorists intent on using genetic engineering to create a synthetic version of the smallpox virus." More recently, in July 2017, John Sotos of Intel Health & Life Sciences stated that gene editing research could "unlock the potential for bioweapons of unimaginable destructive potential."
In February 2016, it became apparent that the wide availability and low cost of key ingredients in technologies like CRISPR made this especially relevant.
However, one has to be careful with the hype about new technologies and, at present, the capabilities of CRISPR are rather modest and exaggerated. There are methods of terror, both simpler and cruder. So far, CRISPR has only been able to attract biological terrorists. But other steps are needed, such as the proliferation and cultivation of biological weapons agents, for them to be effective. This requires additional skills, and the creation of biological weapons based on CRISPR will remain inaccessible to most terrorist groups. At least for now.
But that doesn't mean that CRISPR cannot be used maliciously. It is impossible to ignore the important role of CRISPR in any biological program of the future.
Promotional video:
International efforts
It is worth noting that most states around the world abhor biological warfare. Methods that prevent the development of biological weapons are being actively introduced. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention operates at the international level. According to this convention, "countries have agreed never and under any circumstances to acquire or store biological weapons."
This agreement is not ideal and is difficult to enforce. Moreover, recently, the countries participating in the agreement have not been particularly vigilant about its implementation, and at the last meeting they could not at all agree on further work. So far, this is our cornerstone of the fight against biological weapons. All 178 signatory states in December 2016 declared their "ironclad determination to completely exclude the use of biological weapons and the conviction that such use would be abhorrent to the conscience of humanity."
Consequently, these states will have to consider the hostile potential of CRISPR. Moreover, they must do it collectively. Unilateral national measures and procedures for ensuring biological safety are important. However, a single state is unlikely to succeed in banning the hostile use of CRISPR.
Thus, when the states parties to the convention meet later this year, it is important to agree on a more systematic and regular review of science and technology. Such reviews can assist in identifying and assessing the severity of technologies such as CRISPR, and in providing an international exchange of information on some of the potential benefits of such technologies.
Most States endorsed the principle of expanded science and technology reviews under the convention at the last major meeting. But now they need to seize this opportunity and agree on the practical implementation of such reviews in order to prevent the convention from being left outside the framework of science and technology development.
Biological warfare is not an inevitable consequence of advances in the life sciences. An appropriate agency is needed to develop and use biological weapons. An imperfect convention cannot guarantee that member states will always be able to oppose the harmful use of biological advances. But they can influence those decisions and create an environment in which the disadvantages of finding such weapons outweigh the advantages.
Ilya Khel