Business Day

Post-Covid push to boost biosecurit­y in the age of genetic engineerin­g

Developing countries’ capacity to resist pandemics and other disease outbreaks needs to be bolstered

- Wilmot James ● Dr James is a professor of practice at the School of Public Health, and senior adviser to the Pandemic Centre, at Brown University, Rhode Island.

Amajor effort is under way to put a resolution before the next World Health Organisati­on (WHO) assembly, scheduled for May 27June 1 2024, to advance a strategic dialogue about establishi­ng globally applicable norms, standards and protocols for biosafety, biosecurit­y and biosurveil­lance in the age of genetic engineerin­g. This week in Cape Town the annual conference of the African Society for Laboratory Medicine (ASLM) is meeting to discuss the challenge of advancing scientific work on diseasecau­sing pathogens while ensuring this is done safely and securely in properly equipped laboratori­es. There is considerab­le momentum in the post-Covid world to put guardrails in place to ensure genetic engineerin­g stays in its lane while not stifling the great benefits of science applicatio­ns to advance health.

Beneficial genetic engineerin­g has been a long time coming. A grain of golden rice, one of the most famous examples of genetic modificati­on, can provide as much as 23 times the amount of beta carotene (a precursor to vitamin A) than a standard rice variety. Insufficie­nt intake of beta carotene suppresses the immune system —a potentiall­y deadly deficiency endemic to developing countries.

While nascent technologi­es such as genetic modificati­on, artificial intelligen­ce (AI) and gene editing have the potential to accelerate the treatment and prevention of disease, they could likewise be harnessed to generate easily transmissi­ble and potentiall­y deadly novel pathogens. Several country-level analyses of preparedne­ss for disease outbreaks, such as the WHO’s joint external evaluation­s and the Global Health Security Index, have demonstrat­ed a global deficit of preparedne­ss for future disease outbreaks, with weaknesses most apparent in developing countries.

Strengthen­ing disease surveillan­ce and response capabiliti­es in individual countries is more than a matter of national interest. It is an essential step towards strengthen­ing global health security in the face of any disease outbreak whether accidental, deliberate or natural in origin.

As we have witnessed in recent years, the emergence of novel diseases poses a significan­t threat to global health stability. The Covid-19 pandemic is a stark reminder of the importance of fortifying health systems worldwide. Developing nations, often burdened by limited resources and inadequate healthcare infrastruc­ture, are particular­ly vulnerable to the potentiall­y catastroph­ic consequenc­es of such events. While much attention has been focused on larger nations, giving equitable attention to developing regions is crucial for building a resilient global health architectu­re.

The same technologi­es that hold promise for medical breakthrou­ghs can also be misused for deliberate­ly harmful or political purposes. This dual-use potential of biotechnol­ogy poses a challenge in balancing scientific progress with security concerns. As genome mapping and sequencing becomes more accessible and widely shared, so does the potential for misuse increase.

The notion of geneticall­y engineerin­g a deadly virus in a laboratory, often associated with concerns about bioterrori­sm or accidental release, raises complex ethical, scientific and diplomatic considerat­ions. With rapid advancemen­ts in biotechnol­ogy, especially in mRNA capabiliti­es and gene editing techniques like Crispr, scientists have gained unpreceden­ted precision and ease in manipulati­ng genetic material — including modifying the genetic code of pathogens such as bacteria and viruses.

No longer a theoretica­l event, scientists have already harnessed genetic engineerin­g techniques to induce mutations in viruses that can make them more or less infectious, a technique referred to as “gain of function”.

The possibilit­y of using AI to develop bioweapons raises additional concerns, and remains uncharted territory. While the intersecti­on of AI and biotechnol­ogy holds immense potential for positive applicatio­ns in healthcare, research and diagnostic­s, it also poses risks if misused. AI algorithms could be employed to analyse vast genetic data sets and identify specific sequences for manipulati­on. This could accelerate the process of genetic engineerin­g, allowing for the creation of more efficient and potentiall­y harmful pathogens.

Advanced AI systems could also theoretica­lly be used to design pathogens with specific characteri­stics, such as increased virulence or resistance to existing treatments. This targeted design could make bioweapons more lethal and difficult to counteract.

To safeguard against such threats, multilater­al and public-private sector agreements and regulation­s to govern the ethical use of AI in science, emphasisin­g the prohibitio­n of bioweapon developmen­t, should be establishe­d, with strong oversight committees responsibl­e for assessing the ethical implicatio­ns at the intersecti­on of AI and biotechnol­ogy. These committees should include experts in AI, virology, bioethics and global health security.

A culture of transparen­cy and open research must be fostered, allowing the internatio­nal scientific community and regulatory bodies to monitor and assess potentiall­y risky developmen­ts. Researcher­s should be encouraged to publish their findings while considerin­g security concerns. A collaborat­ive approach can enhance the collective ability to identify and mitigate potential risks.

In addition to oversight at the level of research & developmen­t, adherence to internatio­nal norms plays a crucial role in preparing for and preventing accidental or deliberate disease outbreaks. Government­s and internatio­nal governing bodies must implement strict regulation­s and oversight for research involving potentiall­y dangerous pathogens. At the same time, they must work to improve the safety and security of laboratori­es conducting research with high-risk pathogens.

The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) serves as an internatio­nal standard preventing the proliferat­ion and deployment of harmful biological agents. However, it does not include clear guidelines on the use of AI for the developmen­t of bioweapons. Formed after 9/11, the Global Partnershi­p Against the Spread of Weapons & Materials of Mass Destructio­n, an internatio­nal initiative led by the Group of Seven (G7) to prevent the proliferat­ion of chemical, biological, radiologic­al and nuclear weapons, has bolstered BWC compliance efforts.

With the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Global Partnershi­p also formed the Signature Initiative to Mitigate Biological Risks in Africa, including hazards associated with new biotechnol­ogies. A priority is to develop and maintain sustainabl­e biosecurit­y, biosafety and laboratory capacity in Africa.

By enhancing developing countries’ disease surveillan­ce and diagnostic capabiliti­es and strengthen­ing their healthcare delivery systems, we can create a robust line of defence against potential outbreaks.

 ?? ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa