Do CRISPR and biotech advances pose a national security threat?

CRISPR and gene editing techniques have triggered both excitement and ethical debates. Now senior advisors to the President are highlighting the risk they pose to biodefense

In a Nov. 15 letter, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) call for an advancement of the nation’s biodefense strategy, in line with the technological changes that are impacting the biotechnology field.

“The U.S. Government’s past ways of thinking and organizing to meet biological threats need to change to reflect and address this rapidly-developing landscape,” the authors state.

While they do emphasize the overwhelmingly positive potential of the technologies, the authors note that they could also be used by rogue nation states and individuals who seek to do harm.

The letter coincides with news that a Chinese research team, led by Lu You of Sichuan University, has broken the seal on CRISPR-Cas9 use in humans.

On Oct 31. the scientists extracted immune cells from a patient with aggressive lung cancer. Using CRISPR-Cas9 they deleted a key gene that codes for PD-1 — a protein receptor that can enable a tumor’s growth. Those edited cells were then multiplied and reintroduced into the patient, to theoretically boost the immune response.

One of America’s leading immunotherapy researchers, Carl June of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, said the feat will heighten the urgency and effort imparted by U.S. scientists.

“I think this is going to trigger ‘Sputnik 2.0’, a biomedical duel on progress between China and the United States, which is important since competition usually improves the end product,” June said in a Nature article that was also released on Nov. 15 — the same day as the PCAST letter.

As the science progresses, CRISPR and gene editing may pose a greater threat nationally and globally. Yet it could also play an important role in countering other global health crises.

The PCAST letter calls for a biodefense strategy that prepares for natural and man-made threats.

“While it is essential to have an effective strategy for defense against deliberate biological threats, the Nation and the world will continue to face naturally-occurring infectious diseases,” the authors state, calling out epidemics from SARS to Zika fever.

Gene editing could be crucial in the fight to control the latter.

During the national election, a county in Florida held a referendum on the release of a genetically modified strain of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. The targeted mutation would cause all offspring of the insects to die, drastically reducing the local population.

A majority of voters (58 percent) expressed support for the release of the GMO mosquitos, though it remains unknown what actions will be taken as the referendum was non-binding. In the district at the epicenter of the release, Key Haven, 65 percent of voters opposed the initiative, suggesting a ‘not in my backyard’ sentiment.

The are no easy solutions, which is why a biodefense plan is desperately needed. The scientific advisors have called for a comprehensive strategy that prepares the nation for all foreseeable threats and, as much as possible, events and outbreaks that can’t be predicted.

Two short-term recommendations are outlined, alongside some long-term proposals. Recommendation one calls for the President to create “a new interagency entity charged with planning, coordination, and oversight of national biodefense activities.”

To fund that, the authors second short-term recommendation is for the President to petition Congress to establish a Public Health Emergency Response Fund of at least $2 billion.

At the time of publishing, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology had not yet responded to questions about the letter and its timing as the government prepares to transition.