Advancements in Genetic Engineering
Open Access

Genetic Engineering in Biosecurity and Bioterrorism

James Okada^{* *}Correspondence: James Okada, Department of Cell Biology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia, Email:

Author info »

Description

Genetic engineering, a field of science that allows the manipulation of an organism's genetic material, has transformed our world in remarkable ways. It has the potential to address global challenges like food security, disease treatment, and environmental conservation. However, like any powerful tool, genetic engineering comes with inherent risks, particularly in the domains of biosecurity and bioterrorism [1]. This article explores the role of genetic engineering in these two critical areas, shedding light on the delicate balance bet

ween innovation and the potential for misuse.

Part I: Genetic engineering for biosecurity

Biosecurity encompasses measures taken to prevent the accidental or deliberate release of harmful biological agents, such as viruses, bacteria, or toxins, that could pose a threat to human, animal, or plant health, or to the environment. Genetic engineering plays a significant role in enhancing biosecurity efforts in several ways:

Disease surveillance and diagnosis: Genetic engineering tools like Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and gene sequencing have revolutionized disease surveillance [2]. Rapid detection and identification of pathogens are essential in preventing and responding to disease outbreaks, natural or man-made.

Vaccine development: Genetic engineering allows for the rapid development of vaccines against emerging infectious diseases. Technologies like recombinant Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and messenger Ribonucleic Acid (mRNA) vaccines, as seen in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, enable us to respond more effectively to biosecurity threats [3].

Gene drives: While potentially controversial, gene drives can be used to control or eradicate invasive species, such as diseasecarrying mosquitoes or harmful agricultural pests, thereby reducing biosecurity risks.

Pathogen characterization: Genetic analysis helps in understanding the virulence factors, antibiotic resistance, and transmission dynamics of pathogens, which informs strategies for containment and treatment [4].

However, as genetic engineering advances, concerns about the dual-use nature of this technology, where it can be applied for both beneficial and harmful purposes, arise. These concerns are particularly relevant when discussing bioterrorism [5].

Part II: Genetic engineering and bioterrorism

Bioterrorism involves the intentional use of biological agents to harm or kill people, animals, or plants. Genetic engineering's potential for misuse in bioterrorism is a pressing global concern, and it raises several alarming issues:

Enhanced pathogens: Genetic engineering allows for the enhancement of the virulence, transmissibility, and resistance of pathogens, making them more dangerous and difficult to combat. For example, engineered strains of bacteria or viruses could be resistant to conventional treatments and vaccines [6].

Synthetic biology: Advances in synthetic biology enable the de novo synthesis of organisms and biological agents. This capability raises fears of terrorists constructing novel pathogens with tailored properties, which could evade detection and treatment.

Weaponization of genetic information: The digital era has made it easier for malicious actors to access genetic information online, potentially enabling them to design harmful biological agents more effectively [7].

Dual-use research: Scientific research with dual-use potential, intended for beneficial purposes but with bioterrorism implications, poses a substantial risk. Balancing openness in research with security concerns is challenging.

Part III: The ethical dilemma

The use of genetic engineering in both biosecurity and bioterrorism forces us to confront profound ethical questions. Balancing the benefits of scientific research and technological innovation with the potential for harm is a complex and ongoing challenge.

Scientific freedom vs. security: The tension between scientific freedom and national security interests is a central ethical dilemma. While openness and collaboration are essential for scientific progress, they can also expose vulnerabilities to bioterrorism [8].

Dual-use research: Scientists often find themselves at the intersection of advancing knowledge and the potential for misuse. Deciding what research is ethical and what is not can be subjective and contentious [9].

Global cooperation: Genetic engineering and bioterrorism are global issues, and international cooperation is crucial. Ethical considerations extend to ensuring equitable access to the benefits of genetic engineering and security measures worldwide [10].

Transparency vs. security: Striking the right balance between transparency in scientific research and protecting sensitive information is a complex ethical dilemma. Oversharing could aid potential bioterrorists, while excessive secrecy could hinder scientific progress.

Conclusion

Genetic engineering is a potent tool that has transformed our understanding of biology and has the potential to address global challenges, including those related to biosecurity. However, its dual-use nature means that it can be harnessed for both beneficial and harmful purposes, posing significant risks in the context of bioterrorism. As we navigate this double-edged sword, it is imperative to promote responsible research, international cooperation, and robust ethical frameworks that guide the development and application of genetic engineering while minimizing security risks. Ultimately, striking the right balance between innovation and safeguarding against bioterrorism remains a profound and ongoing ethical challenge for society.

References

1. Arnolds KL, Dahlin LR, Ding L, Wu C, Yu J, Xiong W, et al. Biotechnology for secure biocontainment designs in an emerging bioeconomy. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2021;71:25-31.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

2. Brown NL, Stoyanov JV, Kidd SP, Hobman JL. The MerR family of transcriptional regulators. FEMS microbiology reviews. 2003;27(2-3):145-163.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Liu M, Kakade A, Liu P, Wang P, Tang Y, Li X. Hg2 ± binding peptide decreases mercury ion accumulation in fish through a cell surface display system. Sci Total Environ. 2019;659:540-547.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

4. Pant G, Garlapati D, Agrawal U, Prasuna RG, Mathimani T, Pugazhendhi A. Biological approaches practised using genetically engineered microbes for a sustainable environment: A review. J Hazard Mater. 2021;405:124631.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

5. Wu G, Yan Q, Jones JA, Tang YJ, Fong SS, Koffas MA. Metabolic burden: cornerstones in synthetic biology and metabolic engineering applications. Trends Biotechnol. 2016;34(8):652-664.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

6. Yang J, Zou P, Yang L, Cao J, Sun Y, Han D, et al. A comprehensive study on the synthesis and paramagnetic properties of PEG-coated Fe3O4 nanoparticles. Appl Surf Sci. 2014;303:425-432.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Baker S. Covid vaccine front-runner is months ahead of her competition. Bloomberg News. 2020.

   [Google Scholar]

8. Gao Q, Bao L, Mao H, Wang L, Xu K, Yang M, et al. Development of an inactivated vaccine candidate for SARS-CoV-2. Science. 2020;369(6499):77-81.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

9. Sandbrink JB, Shattock RJ. RNA vaccines: A suitable platform for tackling emerging pandemics?. Front Immuno006C. 2020;11:608460.

   [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]

10. Graham BS, Sullivan NJ. Emerging viral diseases from a vaccinology perspective: Preparing for the next pandemic. Nature Immunol. 2018;19(1):20-28.

    [Google Scholar] [Crossref] [PubMed]