Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Review explores the risks of dual-use biotechnologies and strategies to mitigate bioterrorism threats.
Biotechnologies such as gene editing, bioinformatics, and bioprinting are rapidly advancing and finding impact across medicine and agriculture. Biotechnologies are being made readily available to everyone (democratized), accessible and modifiable via an internet-accessible electronic device (digitalized), and easily shared across borders (globalized). However, with speedy development comes risks and vulnerabilities that necessitate safeguards. Dual-use research of concern (DURC) biotechnology can be weaponized for acts of bioterrorism the intentional spread of biological agents, such as viruses or bacteria, to harm living beings including humans, animals, and plants. Our increasing ability to fabricate and modify living cells and tissues for research and therapies through gene editing, bioinformatics, and bioprinting poses many new ethical questions and challenges with few clearly established regulatory pathways. Regulating access to and utilization of biotechnologies while continuing to foster their innovation is challenging. This review explores the potential misuse of several biotechnologies and possible consequences thereof and to identify successes and persisting gaps in current and proposed mitigation strategies for DURC biotechnologies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coltoff et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: