Could Terrorists Hijack Your Brain?

["Gary Funck" <gary () intrepid com>]

[First, they'd have to find it. <g>]

http://www.technologyreview.com/BioTech/wtr_16221,306,p1.html

Wednesday, February 1, 2006
Could Terrorists Hijack Your Brain?
According to a new report on biosecurity, technological advances in the
not-so-distant future may make it a possibility.

By Emily Singer

Security experts need to prepare for a much broader spectrum of potential
bioterror agents, according to a report released this week by the
Washington, DC-based National Academies.

Most bioweapons research has focused on traditional biological agents, such
as anthrax and smallpox. But that focus is dangerously narrow, the report
says; emerging technologies in biotechnology and the life sciences could be
hijacked to take control of genes, immune systems, and even brains.

"The threat is extremely broad, and it is increasingly global," says Stanley
M. Lemon, cochair of the advisory committee and director of the Institute
for Human Infections and Immunity at the University of Texas Medical Branch
in Galveston, TX.

In order to prepare for the ever-changing ! "threat spectrum," the report
recommends that technologies with dual-use potential -- those that can be
used to either help or harm humanity -- be continually reassessed to take
account of rapid advances in biotechnology. The report also suggests that a
scientific advisory board be developed to aid the national security
community and to ensure that teams monitoring these threats have the most
up-to-date scientific expertise.

Recognizing that the list of bioterror threats is constantly changing is
itself a huge transition, says Drew Endy, a biological engineer at MIT and
leader in the new field of synthetic biology. "It's like the transition from
trench warfare to mobilized warfare between World War I and World War II,"
he says. "How do we begin to defend ourselves against that dynamic threat
landscape? How do we adapt ! our health, medical, and biodefense systems to
respond to that?"

The committee recommended broad measures -- ones that would be useful
regardless of the form of attack -- such as strengthening the nation's
public health infrastructure. The report also suggested incentives for the
pharmaceutical and vaccine industries to create broadly active vaccines and
other products that can protect against diverse agents.

Scientists who drafted the report were also particularly concerned about the
potential of bioregulators -- small, biologically active organic compounds
that can regulate different systems in the body. Newer technologies such as
targeted delivery methods that zero in on the immune or neuroendocrine
systems could make it easier to use bioregulators in insidious ways.

Terrorists could also co-opt relatively new technologies, such as synthetic
biology, which aims to build organisms that can detect or produce chemicals
or perform other functions; and RNA interference, a technique that allows
scientists to easily control gene expression.

As these kinds of technologies become increasingly commonplace throughout
the world, the international scientific community will need to take more
responsibility for the potential abuses of biotechnology, according to the
report. Josh Epstein, a committee member and senior fellow on economic
studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, says one option is a
Web-based forum where scientists can report suspicious research.

The committee also endorsed an open exchange of information in the life
sciences as much as possible, emphasizing that the best means of protecting
against future threats is further advances in technology.


_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.