
Obama Advisers Urge Action Against Bioterror Threat - jonmc12
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602934/obama-advisers-urge-action-against-crispr-bioterror-threat/
======
jcoffland
> If you can get access to the sequence data, that’s really all you need.

I call bullshit. It appears they are arguing to restrict access to gene
sequencing data. If you have the equipment and knowledge to do CRISPR based
gene editing then you can likely also do your own sequencing.

~~~
throwanem
I got the impression that's a claim about identifying engineered attacks,
rather than about making them easier to perform.

Granted it's been a while since I closely followed the field, but to the best
of my knowledge, no one's made significant headway in synthetic organisms
since JCVI's initial "hey we invented a prokaryote" splash a few years back. I
doubt anyone actually in the field would make a claim to a news organization
that access to sequence data would be the highest bar to clear in producing
novel engineered pathogens.

On the other hand, also to the best of my knowledge, gene editing techniques
leave behind traces which are pretty readily identifiable in sequencing
results. So the statement makes a lot more sense in that direction. It's just
that the article is poorly edited in a way that produces semantic ambiguity.

------
basicplus2
And the latest fear campaign begins..

I Wonder which small country will be designated as having these WMDs?

~~~
tossOff999
Sometimes fear is rational, and healthy. Having a respect for a powerful tool
is a healthy fear.

The way new technologies behave when introduced into the open, can have
profound effects on society. Once the cat's out of the bag, it doesn't go back
in.

The serious question here: Is CRISPR as potent and revolutionary as atomic
fission?

Biological resources are more accessible to ordinary laymen than, say,
plutonium and enriched uranium. So it's probably worth asking that question.

The answer to that question will inform us as to whether this is mass media
fear mongering for rating and advertising bumps.

------
a_bonobo
The title is very click-baity (CRISPR is just used as an example in the letter
and appears 3 times on 19 pages), but the points raised are valid.

It's still not easy to create your own bioweapons using these novel
technologies and the field is moving rapidly, so it would be in the best
interest of the US and other countries to start having a national biodefense
strategy that thinks 'bigger' than the CDC, includes international
collaboration on biodefense responses, research, intelligence community input
(bioterrorism), disease surveillance etc.

I assume this letter also happened due to the mediocre reaction of the US to
Zika defense funding, which such an agency would be better suited to defend
against. In fact I think bioterrorism is 'used' here to appeal to the military
hawks, the threat of novel 'natural' diseases is still higher IMHO.

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/os...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_biodefense_letter_report_final.pdf)

