“And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” – Genesis 11:6
The story of Babel, although ancient, remains startlingly relevant in its portrayal of human ambition and its discontents. Unified by a common purpose and language, the builders of Babel sought to reach the heavens, a feat as monumental as it was hubristic. The scattering of Babel was not merely punishment but rather a reckoning, a reminder that unrestrained power invites collapse.
It can be argued that biotechnology today echoes Babel’s paradox. Through the universal ‘language’ of genomics, synthetic biology and neurotechnology, humanity has been granted the ability to rewrite life itself. Nowhere is this transformative potential more evident – or more fraught with peril – than in defence.
Indeed, military applications of biotechnology have the theoretical ability to revolutionise warfare, through paradigm shifts previously limited to the realm of science fiction – be it through genetically enhanced warfighters to precision bioweapons. Specifically in the context of Sino-American strategic competition, militaries have understood that in order to remain competitive, integrating novel biotechnologies in national defence strategies is proving crucial to ensuring the long-term resilience of armies. Whilst biology and warfare have coexisted and become increasingly symbiotic, it is only recently that it has become, and is continuing to become, integral to national defence strategies. However, the ever-evolving relationship between biotechnology and militaries poses increasingly worrying ethical and practical dilemmas which require proactive solutions, which we shall explore over the course of this article.
The Evolution of Biowarfare
The utilisation of biological agents in warfare dates back centuries. For instance, during the 1346 siege of Caffa, Mongol forces catapulted plague-infected corpses over city walls, effectively weaponising disease in order to decimate their adversaries (1). The tactic, though rudimentary, revealed biology’s latent potential as a force multiplier in conflict. It is through industrialisation, however, that the employment of biowarfare became more systematic. During World War 1, German forces used anthrax and glanders to infect Allied livestock and disrupt their logistical lines. World War 2 saw Japan’s Unit 731 conduct lethal experiments on prisoners, dispersing pathogens such as anthrax which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands (2).
The Cold War era marked the institutionalisation of biological weapons programs on an unprecedented scale. In the context of their arms race, both the United States and Soviet Union developed extensive bioweapons arsenals, including agents such as smallpox and tularaemia. By the 1960s, the U.S. bioweapons program employed over 5,000 personnel, and had a budget exceeding $2 billion (3). However, it was the discovery of DNA’s double helix in 1953 that marked a turning point. Biology was no longer descriptive and was transformed into a programmable science. Coupled with the advent of genetic engineering in the 1970s, these discoveries set the stage for modern-day biotechnology.
Enhanced Warfighters
Today, biotechnology is no longer a supporting tool of warfare – it has become an integral part of it, and the ability to engineer life has become increasingly intertwined with strategy. Gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR, short for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats, are a perfect example of this. Originally derived from bacterial immune systems, CRISPR allows scientists to cut, replace or modify DNA sequences with extreme accuracy. Militaries worldwide, particularly China, have recognised and leveraged its potential to engineer soldiers optimised for combat (4). In War for Biological Dominance (2010), Guo Jiwei outlines a future in which biologically enhanced soldiers dominate the battlefield. Recent reports seem to suggest that Chinese research into CRISPR has focused on creating ‘optimised’ soldiers capable of enduring extreme environments, resisting diseases and recovering from diseases at increasingly accelerated rates (5).
The operational benefits of such enhancements are substantial, to say the least. Genetically engineered and enhanced soldiers could eliminate traditional constraints set by space and time and could allow for far greater levels of performance in typically challenging environments (such as Arctic conditions, or combat held in deserts). In addition, enhanced cognitive function could improve data processing and decision-making under pressure, which would create an undoubtable battlefield advantage.
Yet these advancements pose profound ethical and strategic dilemmas, notably surrounding the perspectives for retaliation. With human nature and fallibility usually serving as the great equaliser in combat, enhanced warfighters pose a challenge to the fundamental principles of humanity and proportionality in warfare. How does one calibrate a response against a force that transcends conventional human limitations? What happens when adversaries retaliate not with weapons, but rather with bioweapons designed to exploit the vulnerabilities of these enhancements?
Neurotechnology and Cognitive Warfare
The emergence of neurotechnology from the realm of science-fiction into the mainstream has marked a seismic shift in the scope and conduct of warfare. Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are now being developed to enhance decision-making, monitor cognitive states and even restore brain function after injury. For militaries, the potential of BCI is gargantuan, as they would offer the ability to augment the cognitive capabilities of their soldiers, which in turn leads to more operational flexibility. China has been at the forefront of these developments. In 2020, Chinese researchers demonstrated that a monkey could control a robotic arm using thought alone, signalling to them the feasibility of neural control technologies (6).
The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has since expanded its research into military neurotechnology, focusing on integrating BCIs to improve battlefield decision-making.
However, the deployment of BCIs in present-day military situations comes with significant challenges. BCI technology is still relatively novel, and consequently marred with faults and limitations – which include issues with signal reliability, as well as the need for invasive procedures which could pose health risks to personnel. In addition, neural implants are highly susceptible to cyberattacks, and it is not beyond the realm of possibility that adversaries could leverage this as a means to remotely manipulate and disable soldiers’ cognitive functions. Such risks would blur the lines between biological warfare and cyberwarfare (7).
Synthetic Biology and Battlefield Logistics
Logistics has always formed a decisive component of warfare. The Roman legions relied on granaries to sustain conquests, whilst Napoléon’s armies fell victim to supply chain failures. Synthetic biology now promises to eliminate, at least in theory, such vulnerabilities. For instance, DARPA’s ‘Living Foundries’ (8), through its use of engineered microorganisms to produce critical supplies such as food, fuel and construction materials directly in the field, offers the armed forces the logistical autonomy to sustain operations in remote and/or tricky environments without relying on vulnerable supply chains. So far, the efficiencies engendered by bioengineered bacteria has been nothing short of staggering. Indeed, they have demonstrated the ability to produce bioplastics and biofuels with 30% greater efficiency than traditional methods, thus offering militaries far larger autonomy to conduct operations in, for instance, arid regions, which would be typically difficult terrain to navigate.
The dual-use nature of synthetic biology, (9) however, poses significant security concerns which complicate its deployment in military contexts. For instance, the potential for engineered organisms to be repurposed as biological weapons is non-negligible, which would necessitate stringent biosecurity measures.
Moreover, the aforementioned dual-use nature of synthetic biology complicates the scope and reach of regulation, as technologies intended for ‘beneficial’ use can be misused. As such, this could lead to questions as to how stakeholders and policymakers can construct an international regulatory framework to simultaneously stimulate and encourage innovation whilst mitigating the significant risks that come with the misuse of these technologies, especially if misunderstood.
How can biotechnology be utilised responsibly in National Security?
The integration and ever-growing presence of biotechnology in military applications is not merely a technical achievement – it creates a moral crossroads. As the story of Babel, which we explored earlier, reminds us, unchecked ambition invites disintegration. As such, governance must rise to meet the challenges posed by these technologies, ensuring that they serve as instruments of security and human enhancement rather than tools of chaos and human destruction.
For governance to be effective, a parallel could be drawn between the advent of biotechnologies and the regulation of nuclear weaponry and technologies, as mandated by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Whilst similarities between both technologies may not seem obvious at first glance, the existential risk posed by an irresponsible and unregulated use of the aforementioned technologies creates the need for transparency in terms of development and capabilities. Whilst not a magic fix, mandated transparency – perhaps through the establishment of an institution akin to the IAEA for biotechnologies – could pre-empt misuse and reduce the chance of such technologies falling into the wrong hands, being procured illicitly or used for nefarious purposes. Governance should be anchored in ethical accountability.
As a life science, biotechnology carries an implicit responsibility to preserve and enhance life, rather than serve as a catalyst for its destruction.
Biotechnology holds the power to redefine life itself – a prospect as exhilarating as it is perilous. In the realm of National Security, its applications promise to reshape the character and nature of war. These advancements, if left ungoverned, risk becoming modern iterations of Babel’s hubris: achievements so profound they invite their own undoing. As such, governance through a framework similar to that adopted for nuclear technology could serve as an avenue to align ambition with restraint. Biotechnology’s greatest legacy will not lie in its capacity to destroy, but rather in its potential to sustain and enrich life – a reminder that even the most powerful tools are only as virtuous as the hands who hold them.
References
(1) Wheelis, Mark. (1999). Biological Warfare at the 1346 Siege of Caffa. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5(3).
(2) Harris, Sheldon (2002). Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932-1945, and the American Cover-up. Routledge.
(3) Leitenberg, Milton. (2001). The Problem of Biological Weapons. The MIT Press.
(4) The Jamestown Foundation. (2019). China’s Military Biotech Frontier: CRISPR, Military-Civil Fusion, and the New Revolution in Military Affairs.
(5) Defense One. (2019). China’s Military Pursuing Biotech.
(6) Liu Caiyu and Chen Zishuai (2024). China’s Version of Neuralink Revealed. People’s Daily Online.
(7) RAND Corporation. (2019). Brain-Computer Interfaces: U.S. Military Applications and Implications.
(8) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). (n.d.). Living Foundries Program Overview.
(9) RAND Corporation. (2022). Biotechnology and Today’s Warfighter.
