Anticipating emerging biotechnology threats

Vogel, Kathleen M.; Ouagrham-Gormley, Sonia Ben

doi:10.1017/pls.2018.21

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 79 publications

(105 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While the Biological Weapons Convention established in 1975 prohibits the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling and use of biological and toxin weapons by the 183 states (as of September 2021) that have ratified and acceded the treaty, little can stop rogue actors or terrorist organisations from harnessing existing or creating novel biothreats using the technology available today [ 17 ]. Security concerns range from increasing the lethality or ease of transmission of biological agents to developing novel delivery methods that can overcome preventative vaccine measures [ 18 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioterrorism: An analysis of biological agents used in terrorist events

Tin¹,

Sabeti²,

Ciottone³

2022

The American Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The Covid19 pandemic has reignited debates and discussions around healthcare systems' biosecurity vulnerabilities and cast a spotlight on the potential weaponization of biological agents. Terrorist and violent extremist groups have already attempted to incite the intentional spread of Covid19 and to use it as an improvised form of a biological weapon. This study aims to provide an epidemiological description of all terrorism-related attacks using biological agents sustained between 1970 and 2019. Methods Data collection was performed using a retrospective database search through the Global Terrorism Database (GTD). The GTD was searched using the internal database search functions for all events using biological weapons between January 1, 1970 - December 31, 2019. Results 33 terrorist attacks involving biological agents were recorded between 1970 and 2019, registering 9 deaths and 806 injuries. 21 events occurred in the United States, 3 in Kenya, 2 each in both the United Kingdom and Pakistan and a single event in Japan, Columbia, Israel, Russia and Tunisia. Conclusion The reported use of biological agents as a terrorist weapon is extremely rare and accounts for 0.02% of all historic terrorist attacks. Despite its apparent rarity, however, bioterrorism has the ability to inflict mass injuries unmatched by conventional weapons. Anthrax has been the most commonly used in previous bioterrorism events with the vast majority of reported attacks occurring in the United States by a single suspected perpetrator. Counter-Terrorism Medicine (CTM) and Disaster Medicine (DM) specialists need to be proactive in delivering ongoing educational sessions on biological events to first responder communities, and anticipate emerging novel biotechnology threats.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bioterrorism: An analysis of biological agents used in terrorist events

Tin¹,

Sabeti²,

Ciottone³

2022

The American Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, CRISPR-Cas9 is being used to perform targeted gene editing as a treatment for cancer, increasing our ability to treat cancer and reducing our reliance on toxic chemotherapy drugs, but it could also be used to edit pathogens to increase their virulence. Indeed, the dual use applications and threats from CRISPR are prominently featured in the literature (Vogel and Ouagrham-Gormley 2018;Webber et al 2015).…”

Section: Threats Identified In the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Emerging Biosecurity Threats and Responses: A Review of Published and Gray Literature

Cummings

Volk

Ulanova

et al. 2021

NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of biotechnology has been rigorously researched and applied to many facets of everyday life. Biotechnology is defined as the process of modifying an organism or a biological system for an intended purpose. Biotechnology applications range from agricultural crop selection to pharmaceutical and genetic processes (Bauer and Gaskell 2002). The definition, however, is evolving with recent scientific advancements. Until World War II, biotechnology was primarily siloed in agricultural biology and chemical engineering. The results of this era included disease-resistant crops, pesticides, and other pest-controlling tools (Verma et al. 2011). After WWII, biotechnology began to shift domains when advanced research on human genetics and DNA started. In 1984, the Human Genome Project (HGP) was formerly proposed, which initiated the pursuit to decode the human genome by the private and academic sectors. The legacy of the project gave rise to ancillary advancements in data sharing and open-source software, and solidified the prominence of “big science;” solidifying capital-intensive large-scale private-public research initiatives that were once primarily under the purview of government-funded programs (Hood and Rowen 2013). After the HGP, the biotechnology industry boomed as a result of dramatic cost reduction to DNA sequencing processes. In 2019 the industry was globally estimated to be worth $449.06 billion and is projected to increase in value (Polaris 2020).

show abstract

“…However, the use of this novel technology is met with a range of ethical and philosophical concerns well-documented in academic discourse (de Araujo, 2017;Howell et al, 2020;Vogel and Ouagrham-Gormley, 2018), it remains under-researched which attitudes toward this technology are held by the public and how they may influence public discourse and policy. Research on gene editing attitudes has noted several themes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterogeneous attitudinal profiles towards gene editing: Evidence from latent class analysis

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in gene-editing technology have important implications for the treatment and prevention of disease. Accordingly, it is important to understand public perceptions towards gene editing, as the public’s willingness to endorse gene editing may be as important as technological breakthroughs themselves. Previous research has almost exclusively examined attitudes towards gene editing on specific issues, but has not addressed how attitudes towards gene editing across a range of issues coalesce in individuals: that is, the degree to which discrete, heterogeneous attitudinal profiles exist versus a simple support/oppose continuum. Here, we addressed this issue using latent class analysis on data from The Pew Research Center ( N = 4726; US residents) across a wide range of gene-editing topics. We found that attitudes towards gene editing cohere into 10 distinct latent classes that showed some evidence of a support/oppose continuum, but also for clear qualitative differences between each class, even with support or oppose classes, on a number of issues. The most opposed classes significantly differed from the supporter classes in age, sex, political ideology and self-rated knowledge. These findings provide evidence that attitudes towards gene editing are heterogeneous and public discourse, as well as policy making need to consider a range of arguments when evaluating this technology.

show abstract

Anticipating emerging biotechnology threats

Cited by 8 publications

References 79 publications

Bioterrorism: An analysis of biological agents used in terrorist events

Bioterrorism: An analysis of biological agents used in terrorist events

Emerging Biosecurity Threats and Responses: A Review of Published and Gray Literature

Heterogeneous attitudinal profiles towards gene editing: Evidence from latent class analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About