As deadly as the COVID-19 pandemic was, the next one could be more nightmarish. Powerful new artificial intelligence (AI) models, combined with novel lab tools, could soon enable rogue scientists or states to engineer a pathogen that would spread faster, resist vaccines better and kill more people than COVID-19 did. Governments, technology companies and scientific researchers should act now to lower the risk.
Nature has always had the ability to concoct nasty pathogens, from the plague to the Spanish Flu. For many decades, so have humans: The Japanese conducted brutal biological warfare experiments in World War II, and the US and the Soviet Union stockpiled toxins during the Cold War, with the latter’s program continuing even after signing the Biological Weapons Convention in 1972. The Pentagon thinks Russia and North Korea continue to develop bioweapons.
However, such efforts have traditionally been limited by the number of scientists trained to conduct the necessary research and the tools available for producing and distributing effective weapons. Technology is breaking down both barriers.
Large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI Inc’s ChatGPT can synthesize vast amounts of knowledge rapidly: In one experiment, a chatbot advised a group of Massachusetts Institute of Technology students about how to engineer four potentially deadly pathogens and where to procure the necessary DNA without detection — in an hour.
More specific AI programs trained on biological data, known as biological design tools, are even more powerful. Over time, such programs could speed the development of entirely new pathogens with deadly properties, perhaps even the ability to target specific populations. Emerging technologies — from “benchtop” synthesizers that would allow individual researchers to create their own strands of DNA, to so-called cloud labs where experiments can be conducted remotely using robots and automated instruments — would lower other hurdles to testing and producing potential weapons.
It is worth noting that the barriers to producing and distributing a workable weapon remain quite high. However, scientists say that could change in a few years, given how fast all these technologies are progressing. The time to act is now, before they reach maturity. A series of interventions would help.
Begin with the AI models. Some US developers of the most powerful LLMs are voluntarily submitting them to the government for further evaluation. That is welcome, but more scrutiny might be warranted for the riskiest models — those trained on sensitive biological data. Congress should work with AI developers and scientists to develop criteria for which models might require formal screening and what guardrails could be included in those found to pose the highest risks. While legislators should stay narrowly focused for now, stricter oversight might be warranted as the technology progresses.
The next task is to prevent any AI-designed viruses from entering the real world. Providers of synthetic nucleic acids should be required to know their customers and screen orders for suspicious DNA sequences. All requests should be logged, so new pathogens can be traced back if they are released into the wild. Controls should also be built into benchtop synthesizers, while cloud labs should scrutinize customers and requests. Risky experiments should always have a human in the loop.
The US should press other countries to adopt similar safeguards, so rogue actors cannot simply seek out less scrupulous providers elsewhere. If the Biological Weapons Convention cannot be toughened, because of diplomatic frictions, like-minded countries should at least agree on a set of best practices, as they have begun to do with AI.
Above all, countries ought to harden their pandemic defenses so that anyone who manages to exploit loopholes in the system cannot cause extensive damage. AI itself could boost the ability of governments to detect the emergence of new pathogens, not to mention speed the development of vaccines, and the production and distribution of personal protective equipment. Stronger public health systems are critical, whether new viruses are produced by terrorists, rogue states, accidents or nature.
COVID-19 exposed huge gaps in those defenses, too many of which remain unfilled. Governments have every incentive to head off this new threat while there is still time.
The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS