Biotechnology isn’t just something locked away in high-tech labs anymore, it’s starting to touch almost every part of our lives. From the food on our plates to the medicine in our cabinets, the fabrics we wear, and even the microbes that keep our water clean, Biotech is quietly shaping the world around us.
The progress is speeding up too. Making DNA is way cheaper than it used to be, AI can dream up new ideas in hours, and small groups of researchers are pulling off things that used to take entire governments to achieve.
Of course, great power brings great responsibility. The same tools that can fight disease and help with global problems could, if misused or mishandled, unleash risks we’re only beginning to understand. Biotech is no longer just science; it’s a force that’s starting to rewrite what life looks like.
Biotechnology: the upside
Synthetic biology – the engineering of living systems – has already delivered Covid-19 vaccines at record speed, new cancer therapies, and precision diagnostics. Beyond healthcare, engineered microbes are producing fragrances, materials, and even designer enzymes that break down plastics.
The UN’s Scientific Advisory Board stresses these benefits are real and scalable, provided countries invest in governance that keeps pace with innovation.
Industrial biotech is driving change too, like tweaking microbial methods that could potentially replace petrochemical processes with cleaner, lower-emission approaches.
Experts predict the economic impact of bio-based products will expand rapidly this decade as laboratory design cycles shrinks from years to just months.
The global biotechnology market is projected to reach around $3.44tn by 2030.
The downside
Powerful technology needs rules. A report published in the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) warned of three major risks in modern biotech: bringing back dangerous viruses from published genetic sequences, making existing organisms more harmful, and creating microbes that produce deadly toxins.
These risks are growing as biotech becomes cheaper and more automated. According to the report, tools that were once limited to experts are spreading more widely, safety barriers are weakening, and regulations designed for older forms of biotechnology are struggling to keep up.
The danger isn’t just from intentional misuse. Even well-meaning experiments can go wrong.
For example, a microbe engineered to clean up oil spills could escape and start eating essential plants or animals instead. Or a genetic tool meant to wipe out malaria-carrying mosquitoes (gene drives) could disrupt entire ecosystems in ways we can’t predict.
In biology, control is never guaranteed: life adapts, mutates, and can slip past safeguards.
Capitalising on control of the genetic future
The most powerful nations are likely to capitalise on their strategic advantages to exploit emerging biotechnologies and the markets they create in pursuit of geopolitical objectives.
This dynamic is further complicated by intellectual property concerns, as control over patents and proprietary technologies can deepen global inequalities and limit access for less-advantaged countries.
Another concern is that genome editing, when applied to fertilised human embryos to address severe genetic disorders, could produce harmful effects, such as the activation of cancer genes or the inactivation of tumour-suppressor genes. Furthermore, there are worries that the broader use of gene editing could pave the way for eugenics.
The CRISPR-Cas9 system is the leading tool for gene editing. It directs the Cas9 enzyme to a precise DNA sequence, where it makes a cut, allowing scientists to fix mutations, add new genes, or turn off unwanted ones.
CRISPR pioneer, Jennifer Doudna, mentioned in her book, A Crack in Creation:
The power to control our species genetic future is awesome and terrifying. Deciding how to handle it may be the biggest challenge we have ever faced.
‘Mirror life’: building biology’s inverse
One of the most radical ideas in synthetic biology is ‘mirror life‘, organisms built from the opposite versions of life’s usual building blocks. Instead of the left-handed amino acids that make up all known proteins, these organisms would use right-handed ones, creating a form of life that runs in reverse.
Scientists have warned that such mirror organisms could slip past predators and even immune systems, and prove impossible to break down, posing serious danger to humans, animals, plants, and the environment, if they escaped into the wild, whether by accident or design.
Dr Kate Adamala, a synthetic biologist at the University of Minnesota, has highlighted the potential risks of mirror life:
The danger with mirror life is that it wouldn’t interact with the natural world the way other engineered organisms do. Normal synthetic cells can still be controlled by predators or viruses, but mirror cells would escape those checks and balances.
If these organisms interacted with normal molecules or spread through soil and food chains, the effects could be unpredictable and permanent.
That’s why many ethicists and policymakers are urging strict containment, or even a temporary ban, until society decides if it’s ready to experiment with an entirely new form of life.
Given the potential for mirror organisms to evade both immunity and existing treatments, Dr Adamala has cautioned that the technology could be deliberately weaponised, highlighting the need for strict safeguards:
Halting research now is the most effective way to prevent mirror life from being weaponised in the future.
We are still far from creating a mirror cell, achieving it would take a decade or more, require the coordinated effort of many experts, and depend on technologies that don’t yet exist. At present, it’s simply impossible for anyone to weaponise this technology.
Dr Adamala has highlighted a major victory in bioethics:
All key researchers capable of creating mirror life have agreed to halt their work. While there’s no international regulation or law enforcing this, the fact that no known actor with the expertise is moving forward is a remarkable achievement.
AI + Biotech
Artificial intelligence (AI) is making waves in biotechnology. Advanced AI systems, known as foundation models, can suggest new protein designs, fine-tune metabolic processes, and even guide people with limited lab experience through complex experiments.
For scientists, this is a game-changer, but it also raises new security concerns.
Experts warn that these AI-powered tools could make it easier for someone to create dangerous biological agents or bypass safety checks when ordering DNA online.
Security think tanks recommend measures such as mandatory DNA sequence screening, human oversight for sensitive orders, and rigorous testing of AI systems to prevent them from producing harmful outputs.
Meanwhile, researchers developing synthetic cells, from scratch rather than by modifying existing organisms, stress the importance of responsible practices.
They advocate for transparency, publishing safety measures alongside scientific advances, and designing experiments that prioritise safety, even before breakthrough discoveries are made.
Dr Adamala pointed out that AI can now help design proteins and run complex experiments, raising new questions about safety and misuse:
AI is speeding up experiments and could eventually lower the expertise needed in synthetic biology. Right now, harmful work still requires deep knowledge, but as AI develops, it may let less-experienced people perform complex experiments. That’s where the real risk lies, and safeguarding efforts will need to keep pace.
Safeguards might not be enough
Scientists have proposed a range of safeguards to make biotechnology safer, but it’s far from risk-free.
Their proposed safeguards fall into four main areas: checking DNA orders so dangerous genes don’t reach labs, designing organisms with ‘kill switches’ that make them die outside controlled settings, testing new organisms carefully, first in labs, then in small outdoor trials, before any broader release, and setting up training and reporting systems to catch accidents early.
These measures are important, but none can guarantee safety.
DNA checks can miss cleverly modified sequences. Kill switches can fail. Lab tests and small trials can’t predict every real-world outcome. And human error, whether from oversight, cost-cutting, or simple mistakes, remains the most unpredictable factor of all.
Experts warn that the risks go beyond accidents. A malicious actor doesn’t need to create a superbug from scratch; they could exploit gaps in DNA screening or release a partially tested organism.
Even without ill intent, the race to commercialise new biotech can tempt startups to downplay risks, while governments often struggle to keep up with rapid innovation.
The potential consequences are huge: released organisms could disrupt ecosystems, public trust in biotech could crumble, and engineered pathogens could even spark global instability.
Unlike chemical or nuclear hazards, biological threats can spread, evolve, and multiply meaning a single misstep could have far-reaching effects for generations.
Is the juice of biotech worth the squeeze?
The breakthroughs promised by biotechnology are real, including faster vaccines and cleaner industries. These could help address some of the greatest challenges of our century.
But the risks are equally real, and they do not stop at borders.
An engineered pathogen released in one country can spread globally in weeks. A poorly tested organism introduced into one ecosystem can ripple across continents.
That is why many experts caution that the question is not whether biotech’s “juice” is worth the squeeze, but whether the world is prepared to squeeze responsibly.
National laws and voluntary guidelines are not enough in a field where DNA can be ordered online, and experiments can be done in almost any laboratory.
What’s missing is a robust international regulatory framework: international rules for DNA screening, common standards for biosafety, rapid reporting channels for accidents, and enforcement mechanisms strong enough to stop reckless or malicious use.
Without this kind of shared oversight, the positives of biotechnology could be overshadowed by the first major failure, whether through accident, negligence, or intent.
On the challenges of global oversight in mirror life research, Dr Adamala observed:
There is currently no enforceable international framework for biological safeguards of mirror life research. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is limited, and given the current political climate, I believe state-level efforts are more practical than pursuing broad international treaties.
Safety in the ‘biotech age’
Biotechnology is no longer just something that happens in labs. It’s shaping how we grow food, treat diseases, and run industries. Many people are excited about its potential to fight hunger, cure illnesses, and make our systems stronger and more reliable.
But others are more cautious. Changing life at such a basic level brings risks we can’t always predict, no matter how many rules we set. The same tools that offer big breakthroughs, like genetic engineering, also raise serious concerns.
As biotechnology moves forward, the challenges aren’t just about science anymore. They’re about choices and ethics. In the end, what matters most may not be how far we can push the science, but how wisely we decide to use it.
Featured image via the Canary
This post was originally published on Canary.