Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Emerging Life Sciences: New Challenges to Strategic Stability

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Disruptive and Game Changing Technologies in Modern Warfare

Abstract

This chapter explores the potential for new biotechnologically-enabled weapons to compete with nuclear weapons as far as effect on strategic stability, and assesses whether the assumptions in traditional strategic stability models are still valid when applied to such scenarios, and how changing capabilities and adversaries may shape approaches to arms control, verification, and monitoring. When thinking about biotechnology from a security perspective, anticipating the types of security threats that may emerge as science and technology advance, the potential consequences of those threats, the probability that adversaries will obtain or pursue them, adversarial intent, and potential effect on strategic stability is necessary. The range and spectrum of possible capabilities and actors are expanding. The most recent addition to the genome-editing arsenal is CRISPR, a bacteria-derived system that is among the simplest genome-editing tools. The CRISPR-Cas9 system—and emerging variants on the system—enables unprecedented control and ease when editing the genome. With parallels to remote ‘command and control’ of the genome, this is one aspect that makes the technology different from earlier gene-editing methods. Contemporary analyses of emerging technologies often expose tenuous links or disconnections between technical realities and mainstream scholarship. How, when, where, and in what form the shifting nature of technological progress may bring enhanced or entirely new capabilities, many of which are no longer the exclusive domain of a single nation-state, is contested and requires better analytical tools to enable assessment and inform policy choices. This work is hardly the only one to consider the biosecurity implications of CRISPR, gene-editing, and broader issues of biotechnology. As far as is known, it is the only one to address these emerging life sciences technologies in the context of nuclear strategic stability and implications for balance of power, arms control, and international security.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    “New scientific and technological developments relevant to the Convention: Some examples,” BWC Preparatory Committee, Eighth Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, BWC/CONF.VIII/PC/WP.18, August 5, 2016.

  2. 2.

    For example, see [10,11,12,13,14].

  3. 3.

    For an excellent overview of the CRISPR-Cas9 system by two of the discovers, see [31].

References

  1. Rennstich KJ (2008) The making of a digital world: the evolution of technological change and how it shaped our world. Palgrave MacMillan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  2. Unclassified Key Judgments of the National Intelligence Estimate (2007) Prospects for Iraq’s Stability: a Challenging Road Ahead. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Press%20Releases/2007%20Press%20Releases/20070202_release.pdf

  3. Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bill Gates warns tens of millions could be killed by bio-terrorism. The Guardian (UK), 18 Feb 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/18/bill-gates-warns-tens-of-millions-could-be-killed-by-bio-terrorism

  6. Clapper JR (2016) Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, Statement for the Record to the Senate Armed Services Committee, 9 Feb 2016. https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/SASC_Unclassified_2016_ATA_SFR_FINAL.pdf

  7. Letter to the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President, Nov 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_biodefense_letter_report_final.pdf

  8. Reeves RG et al (2018) Agricultural research, or a new bioweapon system? Science 362(6410):35–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dando M (2016) Find the time to discuss new bioweapons. Nature 535:9. https://www.nature.com/news/find-the-time-to-discuss-new-bioweapons-1.20206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Vogel KM, Ouagrham-Gormley SB (2018) Anticipating emerging biotechnology threats: a case study of CRISPR. Polit Life Sci 37(2):203–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gronvall G (2018) The security implications of synthetic biology. Survival 60(4):165–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Oye KA et al (2014) Regulating gene drives. Science 345(6197):626–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Koblentz GD (2004) Pathogens as weapons: the international security implications of biological warfare. Int Secur 29(1):84–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Peterson S (2002) Epidemic disease and national security. Secur Stud 12(2):43–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Elbe S (2002) HIV/AIDS and the changing landscape of war in Africa. Int Secur 27(2):159–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. McInnes C, Lee Kelley (2006) Health, security and foreign policy. Rev Int Stud 32:5–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Letendre K, Fincher CL, Thornhill R (2010) Does infectious disease cause global variation in the frequency of intrastate armed conflict and civil war? Biol Rev 85(3):669–683

    Google Scholar 

  18. Waddington C (2014) Ebola outbreak in Guinea: a different type of regional stability threat. Africa Confl Monthly Monit 2014(5):47–51

    Google Scholar 

  19. Heymann DL et al (2015) Global health security: the wider lessons from the west African Ebola virus disease epidemic. Lancet 385(9980):1805–1806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Omoleke SA, Mohammed I, Saidu Y (2016) Ebola viral disease in West Africa: a threat to global health, economy and political stability. J Public Health Africa 7(1):27–40

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kalra S et al (2014) The emergence of Ebola as a global health security threat: from ‘Lessons Learned’ to coordinated multilateral containment efforts. J Glob Infect Dis 6(4): 164–177

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jackson RJ et al (2001) Expression of mouse interleukin-4 by a recombinant ectromelia virus suppresses cytolytic lymphocyte responses and overcomes genetic resistance to mousepox. J Virol 75:1205–1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chen N et al (2011) Poxvirus interleukin-4 expression overcomes inherent resistance and vaccine-induced immunity: pathogenesis, prophylaxis, and antiviral therapy. Virology 409(2):328–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. MacKenzie D (2003) US develops lethal new viruses. New Sci. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4318-us-develops-lethal-new-viruses/

  25. Guerra FM et al (2017) The basic reproduction number (R0) of measles: a systematic review. Lancet 17(12):e420–e428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fine PE (1993) Herd immunity: history, theory, practice. Epid Rev 15:265–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wallinga J, Lévy-Bruhl D, Gay NJ, Wachmann CH (2001) Estimation of measles reproduction ratios and prospects for elimination of measles by vaccination in some western European countries. Epid Infect 127:281–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Porteus M (2006) Mammalian gene targeting with designed zinc finger nucleases. Mol Ther 13:438–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mansilla-Soto J, Riviere I, Boulad F et al (2016) Cell and gene therapy for the beta-thalassemias: advances and prospects. Hum Gene Ther 27(4): 295–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Jo Yi, Kim H, Ramakrishna S (2015) Recent developments and clinical studies utilizing engineered zinc finger nuclease technology. Cell Mol Life Sci 72(20):3819–3830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2014) The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346(6213):1077–1088

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ran FA et al (2015) In vivo genome editing using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Nature 520:186–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Zetsche B et al (2015) Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-cas system. Cell 163(3):759–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Fonfara I et al (2016) The CRISPR-associated DNA-cleaving enzyme Cpf1 also processes precursor CRISPR RNA. Nature 532:517–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McKenna A et al (2016) Whole organism lineage tracing by combinatorial and cumulative genome editing. Science 353(6298):aaf7907-11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yoshimi K, Kaneko T, Voigt B, Mashimo T (2014) Allele-specific genome editing and correction of disease-associated phenotypes in rats using the CRISPR-cas platform. Nat Commun 5(4240):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  37. Heo TY et al (2015) CRISPR/Cas9 nuclease-mediated gene knock-in in bovine-induced pluripotent cells. Stem Cells Dev 24:393–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Han H et al (2014) One-step generation of myostatin gene knockout sheep via the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Front Agric Sci Eng 1: 2–15

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kang Q et al (2014) Improving pig genetic resistance and muscle production through molecular biology. In: Proceeding of 10th world congress genetics applied livestock production. https://asas.org/docs/default-source/wcgalp-proceedings-oral/362_paper_10607_manuscript_1526_0.pdf?sfvrsn=2

  40. Efficient genome editing of genes involved in neural crest development using the CRISPR/Cas9 system in Xenopus embryos. Cell Biosci 6(22) (2016). http://cellandbioscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13578-016-0088-4

  41. Liang P et al (2015) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell 6(5):363–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Cyranoski D, Reardon S (2015) Embryo editing sparks epic debate. Nature 520:593–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Normile D (2018) Shock greets claim of CRISPR-edited babies. Science 362(6418):978–979

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. He J (2019) China condemns ‘baby gene editing’ scientist. BBC News, 21 Jan 2019. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-46943593

  45. Wang H, Yang H (2019) Gene-edited babies: what went wrong and what could go wrong. PLOS Biol. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000224

  46. O’Green H, Abigail S, Sega DJ (2015) How specific is CRISPR/Cas9 really?. Curr Opin Chem Biol 29:72–78

    Google Scholar 

  47. Tsai SQ et al (2015) GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 33:187–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Chapman JE, Gillum D, Kiani S (2017) Approaches to reduce CRISPR off-target effects for safer genome editing. Appl Biosaf J ABSA Int 22(1):7–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Cyranoski D (2019) China set to introduce gene-editing regulation following CRISPR-baby furore. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01580-1

  50. Wei X, Nielsen R (2019) CCR52-∆32 is deleterious in the homozygous state in humans. Nat Med 25:909–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zhou M et al (2016) CCR5 is a suppressor for cortical plasticity and hippocampal learning and memory. eLife 20(5):e20985

    Google Scholar 

  52. Joy MT et al (2019) CCR54 is a therapeutic target for recovery after stroke and traumatic brain injury. Cell 176(5):1143–1157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Regalado A (2019) China’s CRISPR twins might have had their brains inadvertently enhanced. MIT Technol Rev. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612997/the-crispr-twins-had-their-brains-altered/

  54. Cyranoski D (2019) Russian biologist plans more CRISPR-edited babies. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01770-x

  55. Martin S (2002) The role of biological weapons in international politics: the real military revolution. J Strateg Stud 25(1):76

    Google Scholar 

  56. Nuclear Posture Review Report (2010) viii, United States Department of Defense. https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/defenseReviews/NPR/2010_Nuclear_Posture_Review_Report.pdf

  57. Nuclear Posture Review Executive Summary (2018) United States Department of Defense. https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877/-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.PDF

  58. Kosal ME (2018) WMD strategy gap: capacities, capabilities, and collaboration. PRISM 7(3):50–67

    Google Scholar 

  59. Smithson Amy E (1999) Tall order: crafting a meaningful verification protocol for the biological weapons convention. Polit Life Sci 18(1):79–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Littlewood J (2005) The biological weapons convention: a failed revolution. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  61. Littlewood J (2012) The biological weapons convention. In: Faure G (ed) Unfinished business: why international negotiations fail. University of Georgia Press, Athens, pp 107–129

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sims NA (2006) Toward the BWC review conference: diplomacy still in the doldrums. Disarmament Diplomacy, vol 82. http://www.acronym.org.uk/old/dd/dd82/82ns.htm

  63. Hart J, Trapp R (2012) Science, technology, and the biological weapons convention. Arms Control Today 42(8):15–21

    Google Scholar 

  64. Araki M, Ishii T (2014) International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 12(108). http://www.rbej.com/content/12/1/108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Tebas P et al (2014) Gene editing of CCR68 in autologous CD4 T cells of persons infected with HIV. N Engl J Med 370:901–910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Flotte TR (2015) Therapeutic germ line alteration: has CRISPR/Cas9 technology forced the question? Hum Gene Ther 26(5):245–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. NIH-RAC. NIH Guidelines for research involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules (NIH Guidelines), Apr 2016. http://osp.od.nih.gov/office-biotechnology-activities/biosafety/nih-guidelines

  68. World at Risk: The Report of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, Dec 2008. https://www.absa.org/leg/WorldAtRisk.pdf

  69. Kosal ME (2009) Nanotechnology for chemical and biological defense. Springer Academic Publishers, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  70. Ostfield M (2009) Pathogen security: the illusion of security in foreign policy and biodefense. Int J Risk Assess Manag 12:204–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kosal ME (2008) U.S. policies to reduce the threat of chemical terrorism, in 9/11 + 6 Initiative Foreign Policy Priorities for a Secure America, The Partnership for a Secure America, May 2008. http://www.psaonline.org/downloads/CHEMICAL%20report%208-28-08.pdf

  72. Truman HS (1949) Inaugural address. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project, 20 Jan 1949. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13282

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Margaret E. Kosal

Authors
  1. Margaret E. Kosal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret E. Kosal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sam Nunn School of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Margaret E. Kosal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kosal, M.E. (2020). Emerging Life Sciences: New Challenges to Strategic Stability. In: Kosal, M. (eds) Disruptive and Game Changing Technologies in Modern Warfare. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28342-1_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation