Never heard of theSiege of Caffa of 1346? The Mongols of the Golden Horde hurled plague-infected corpses over the city walls. Some scholars believe that it was that primitive example of a biological weapon that triggered the Black Death in Europe. Now take that medieval strategy and imagine augmenting it with artificial intelligence and gene editing. Are you feeling sick? You should.
This is exactly what keeps experts at Cambridge University awake at night, so much so that they have been pushed to create the Engineered Pandemics Risk Management Program. An initiative that takes the bull by the horns: studying how to prevent and (if necessary) how to survive the next pandemic, perhaps one created deliberately.
Pandemic as a Bioweapon: The Origins of a Planned Nightmare
Five years have passed since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, and the specter of another fast-spreading viral disaster continues to hover over our heads like the sword of Damocles. Last Thursday we witnessed the official launch of a new program based on theUniversity of Cambridge, designed to help the world prepare for the worst-case scenario.
While the origins of Covid remain shrouded in mystery (and will continue to be, I fear), Cambridge's program stems from the belief that a future pandemic could be the result of a deliberate effort, a biological weapon designed by human hands. Not exactly the most reassuring thought before going to sleep, right?
The research will focus partly on preventing such an outbreak and partly on developing contingency plans for the UK, should the worst-case scenario occur (it must be one of those forecasts requested by the UK government (to science fiction writers). The staff includes world-renowned experts in subjects ranging from immunology to science policy, biotechnology to post-apocalyptic survival strategies. Ok, I added the last one, but it wouldn't hurt to have one.
Biological warfare is nothing new
Biological warfare has existed for thousands of years, and there is the precedent I told you about, which ended with perhaps the extermination of a third of the European population. And this time it could be even worse.
In a Press release, the committee said the modern threat is unprecedented, given advances inartificial intelligence and in gene editing. Not to be apocalyptic, but we have created tools that allow you to edit DNA as if it were a Word document, and we are surprised that someone would use them for nefarious purposes? Human ingenuity never ceases to amaze me.
There is a great opportunity for a coordinated approach to managing the risks posed by engineered pandemics.
These words Clare Bryant, Professor of Medicine at Cambridge and co-chair of the programme. The Professor continues:
We need experts and agencies across the spectrum to work together and develop a better understanding of who or what might be driving such events and what their likely impact would be. And we need data-driven policies and networks that would help us respond to (or better yet, prevent) such an eventuality.
Translation: we are completely unprepared and are running for cover before someone with a doctorate and a superiority complex decides to play “let's recreate the Spanish flu, but worse”.
The 5 scenarios most feared by experts
Here are the five most likely ways abiological weapon could trigger the next pandemic, experts say. It's not exactly bedtime reading, but it's better to be informed than ignorant.
First: the deliberate release of engineered pathogens. Imagine a supercharged version of anthrax or smallpox, designed to resist existing vaccines and spread more rapidly. States with biological weapons programs might see these agents as a cheap alternative to nuclear weapons.
Second: terrorist groups with access to clandestine laboratories. With the democratization of gene editing technologies such as CRISPR, even small groups could theoretically modify existing pathogens. A global security nightmare, considering (we have seen) how difficult it is to trace the origin of an epidemic.
Third: laboratory accidents with enhanced pathogens. Not everything has to be intentional to be catastrophic. That thing that seems crazy to me, the research on the gain function (the one that tries to make viruses more transmissible to study them better) could lead to accidental escapes of super-contagious agents.
Fourth: artificial intelligence + biotechnology. AI could speed up the design of new pathogens by identifying genetic modifications that would make a virus more lethal or transmissible. A potentially doomsday combination in the wrong hands.
Fifth: biohacking and the democratization of biotechnology. As the cost of molecular biology equipment drops, even lone individuals could attempt to create a biological weapon. Indeed, the “lone bioterrorist” scenario is one that keeps many security experts awake at night.
Strategies for dealing with the inevitable
In addition to researching the most likely “state and non-state actors” that might work to modify harmful pathogens into bioweapons (or simply accidentally release one), the program will also examine strategies for dealing with such a crisis once it has erupted. At the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, you know, hospitals around the world faced a shortage of personal protective equipment, such as N95 respirators.
The group’s experts will work on models that could help predict what products and other infrastructure might be needed in the event of another pandemic, and how to set up supply lines to ensure there are no supply shortages. It took months to organize a response to Covid (a relatively slow virus compared to other potential pathogens). What if next time we only have days, not months?
Trust as an Even More Powerful 'Biological Weapon'
The Cambridge group recognized that distrust of science and the spread of misinformation are bound to play a major role in an epidemic. And here we touch the greatest paradox: we could have the best containment plans, the most effective vaccines, the most sophisticated early warning systems, but if the population does not trust the institutions, and the institutions do not act with transparency, all this will be useless.
Misinformation is as dangerous as any virus, perhaps more so. A pathogen can kill the body, but distrust of science kills our collective ability to respond.
It is unclear when the program's work will be published or made available to the public. Considering that experts have been warning for years that another pandemic It is likely to happen in this century, I think I speak for everyone when I wish them good luck. They will need it. We all will.
Time is of the essence, and it is in short supply.
There is something deeply disturbing in the fact that we must start to consider engineered pandemics as a real threat as a biological weapon. The truth is that the genie is out of the bottle. The technology to genetically modify pathogens exists, is accessible and is becoming more sophisticated every day. We cannot “uninvent” it, just as we cannot uninvent the atomic bomb.
What we can do is prepare. Create early warning systems. Invest in health infrastructure. Build strategic reserves of medical devices. Develop rapid response platforms for vaccines. But most of all, we need to rebuild trust in scientific and health institutions. Without that trust, we are as vulnerable as we were in the Middle Ages when dead bodies were flying over the walls of Caffa.
I like to think that the Cambridge programme represents a significant first step. But I'm also cynical enough to wonder: will it be enough? And most importantly: will it arrive on time? The race is on, and we don't even realize that we might already be late.
