Biotechnology: Progress or a Step to Human Self-Destruction?
Source: Unsplash
Science fiction seems to have prepared at least four generations for the most threatening scenarios of developing and implementing biotechnologies in various fields of human life, ranging from science and healthcare to commerce and industry. We are aware of such negative consequences as overpopulation, scarce resources, by-products, bioweapons, bioterrorism, and epidemics. Remember the words of Professor Preobrazhensky (the protagonist of Mikhail Bulgakov’s novella “A Dog’s Heart”) who mocks the idea of artificially creating “Spinozas,” referring to the philosopher Baruch Spinoza as a symbol of genius. In the story, after turning a dog into a man through surgery, he concludes that attempting to “manufacture” geniuses is senseless when nature can produce it on its own. Yet today the issue is more complicated. Not every woman can or wishes to have a child (and certainly not on demand) and even if a genius were born, there is no guarantee that he or she would begin serving humanity’s immediate needs. Geniuses do not follow society’s timetable.
Emerging biotechnologies are still subject to controversy, as they are a two-edged sword, bringing solutions to several problems, especially in medicine and agriculture, along with posing new threats to biological world safety. Moreover, other non-traditional and traditional threats, including terrorism, demographic and ecological problems, and international conflicts and wars, can be aggravated by means of biological innovations. It is possible to mention here the 2001 anthrax attacks in the USA that killed 5 people and infected 17 more, which accentuated the hazard of bioterrorism and prepared the ground for justifying the US-led intervention in Iraq a year later.
Additionally, the relevance of the issue consists not only in the rapid development of bioscience but also in the high speed of implementing discoveries, especially in the spheres of bioengineering and neuroscience. It is a wonder how some people who were afraid of microchipping yesterday can be enthusiastic about Elon Musk’s wireless brain chips implanted in a human today. The problem is that nobody knows how this device will affect the patient, how it will be used, or how the whole process will be regulated. If the first “how” might have a positive answer, the other two are still dubious to feel optimistic about the situation. Besides highly debated Musk’s experiments and despite the Biological Weapons Convention, the number of biolaboratories has been increasing in the world. In this framework, it would be reasonable to put another question to consider in this essay: “How can potential negative impacts of biotechnologies be avoided or mitigated?”.
First of all, it is necessary to dwell upon some factors that make promising innovations globally dangerous.
Accessibility. Any technologies become cheaper and more accessible. This means that more people will have an opportunity to be treated for serious diseases by means of bioengineering, including the growth of artificial internal organs, gene editing, new medicines capable of changing biologic characteristics of a patient, and the like. It is an obvious advantage, but these achievements may turn out to devalue human life. For example, if severe injuries or bodily damage can be rapidly repaired, political or military decision-makers might become less restrained in situations of armed conflicts, assuming that losses are more manageable or reversible.
Besides, the development of AI can pose another challenge to human civilization. As AI systems become more advanced and widely accessible, they may lower the barrier to acquiring highly specialized knowledge. In the wrong hands, such systems could potentially provide guidance or technical assistance related to the development or modification of dangerous biological agents, which can lead to a great number of victims and trigger uncontrolled epidemics in the world.
Accidentality. As opposed to the first factor that still sounds hypothetical, the problem of accidents in biolaboratories is vitally important. Although the scientific community has concluded that COVID-19 was a natural-born virus that emerged from an animal host, and refuted the theory of a man-made virus, the scale of the pandemic has raised concerns about the danger of biological weapons and humanity's vulnerability to them. Another example is the tragedy that happened in 1979 in the Sverdlovsk region (the USSR), where a great number of mature males were killed with an unknown virus. The details have been kept secret since that time, but the situation has been allegedly connected with the release of dangerous bioagents to the environment.
“Subjective technology abuse”. Cutting-edge biotechnologies carry genuine dual-use risks: not only can they be deployed for beneficial purposes, but the very same tools and techniques can be deliberately misused to create harmful biological agents or weapons, resulting in bioterrorism or biological wars.
Furthermore, there has been a surge in innovative applications of this technology in the military sector. The US has conducted research in genetics to make soldiers resistant to chemical or biological agents. According to the Defense Department, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has already invested over 65$ million in gene-editing studies on mosquitos.
Now, let us take a look at some biotechnology and bioengineering fields considered alarming in terms of their possible impact on separate individuals in particular and humanity in general - gene editing and synthetic biology.
To start with, genome editing might seem like an absolutely positive phenomenon at first glance. Changing DNA to lower the disease risk and potentially eradicating genetic disorders does sound rather promising. However, some deeper analysis should be conducted before concluding.
First and foremost, the definition of gene editing includes: the modification of the DNA sequence of an organism, often to alter its traits and correct defects. The process usually involves the use of enzymes, where the DNA strands are cut, enabling the removal of existing DNA and its further replacement. One of the major turning points of genome editing is considered the creation of the first genetically engineered organism when a gene for antibiotic resistance was inserted into E.coli bacteria. Since then, numerous technological advancements have paved the way for the emergence of a new field: synthetic biology, which involves a wide spectrum of research activities and a huge variety of tools used.
Nowadays, scientists tend to associate a gene editing breakthrough with CRISPR-Cas9 technology. These intimidating letters stand for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, basically repeated sequences in DNA. Cas9 (an enzyme) acts as a pair of scissors and cuts DNA, making the “editing” significantly easier. This has opened new doors for scientific discoveries that would reshape the future of biology and medicine.
But why is this concerning? First, it is ethics that brings controversy to the issue. Altering genes to cope with innate diseases might require interference at the embryonic level. However, should it be acceptable since it is impossible to get permission at such a state of human development? Moreover, this type of intervention always involves the risk of mutation. Therefore, one cannot predict whether the editing will harm an individual or cure them. If so, how should this matter be regulated? The European Union, in particular, regulates many SynBio branches through existing gene technology and biosafety legislation, but at the same time it does not yet have a distinct set of guidelines dedicated specifically to synthetic biology. However, ongoing initiatives such as the proposed EU Biotech Act aim to address some regulatory gaps. Meanwhile, editing the genes of embryos intended for pregnancy is banned in a great number of countries worldwide. Case in point, Chinese scientist He Jiankui was sentenced to 3 years in prison after announcing the birth of the world’s first gene-edited babies. The researcher tried to protect the fetuses from HIV; nevertheless, some scientists believed that instead of introducing immunity, he created mutations, the consequences of which were still unknown. At the same time, other countries, such as the UK, may allow embryo editing for research purposes. This highlights the diverse range of opinions on the matter, which could lead to a greater societal polarisation in the future.
Another alarming consequence is also connected with the ethical aspect. Since gene therapies are likely to be rather expensive, there is a high chance that ordinary people will have no access to them. This, in turn, would lead to broadening the gap between the rich and the poor, not only financially but also in terms of health. Subsequently, the population will be divided into well-off and healthy elites and the rest of the world. Mass discontent with this scenario of events may result in an increase in violence and even brutal civil wars or regional conflicts.
The following group of concerns is directly linked to security issues. There is no guarantee that the tools of synthetic biology will not be used to create malicious pathogens that could be exploited as a biological weapon. Needless to say, the development and production of such weapons are prohibited by the UN convention, but with the latest technologies making it difficult to determine the artificial nature of microorganisms, this possibility cannot be ruled out. Even in the past, there were some instances where doubts were cast upon the independent emergence of certain viruses. For example, the “Japanese sabotage” hypothesis of the spread of tick-borne encephalitis in the USSR was subject to many heated debates in the 20th century.
The dual-use of biotechnologies, along with an insufficient understanding of possible outcomes of their implementation, illustrates the urgent need to elaborate ways of dealing with emerging challenges that are often unpredictable. Measures should be taken at global and national levels and should both provide biosecurity and encourage further research.
To start with, some comprehensive regulatory frameworks should be introduced to govern the development and application of biotechnologies. With the advent of new tools, the regulations must be broadened and updated as well.
Encouraging international collaboration can also be considered a positive step. Governments may cooperate to develop new guidelines for the safe use of biotechnologies and elaborate mechanisms of monitoring and control. Another reason for joined efforts is providing transparency of research. Besides the cooperation between countries, the collaboration between disciplines is also required. Scientists, ethicists, policymakers, and the public need to work together to address complex SynBio issues, provide a thorough overview, and develop solutions suitable for the representatives of each sphere.
Moreover, ethical review boards need to be implemented in order to gauge the implications of biotechnological research and its manifestations. For instance, some universities already have Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) that assess research proposals, ensuring ethical standards are upheld.
All in all, since biotechnology (synthetic biology and gene editing in particular) is still an unpredictable phenomenon that could have both positive and negative impacts, it can be considered a non-traditional threat. The insufficient regulation, possible intentional misuse, proliferation in the military field, and subsequent effects on global security demonstrate an urgent need for collective action to prevent biological contamination of the planet and irreversible genome modification of a human being. Otherwise, human civilization striving for physical self-improvement and immunity to all diseases can become more vulnerable or even extinct in the long run.