U.S. trails China in race to utilize biotech on the battlefield
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Illustration: Axios Visuals
A critical avenue of U.S.-China competition has slipped under the public's radar despite its potential outsize impacts on economies, militaries and weaponry: biotechnology.
Why it matters: Better body armor, dynamic camouflage, foods synthesized in trenches, super soldiers, landmine-detecting bacteria and sabotaged materials shipped to the enemy are all promises of this field.
- And a new report concludes that Beijing is ascending to biotech dominance, at great risk to Washington.
Driving the news: The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology filed that report to Congress this month after two years of research and debate.
- Commissioners include Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), also a member of the intelligence committee; Eric Schmidt, the former Google CEO; and Michelle Rozo, a vice president at In-Q-Tel and former principal director for biotechnology at the Pentagon.
Here's a taste of the report's many findings, recommendations and warnings:
- China is sprinting ahead after prioritizing biotech 20 years ago. The U.S. must course correct in three years.
- Washington should dedicate $15 billion minimum over the next five years to supercharge the sector.
- Beijing's advancements are fueled by military-civil fusion. But the U.S. "should not try to out-China China; that is a losing strategy."
- There is "every reason to believe" the Chinese Communist Party will "weaponize biotechnology." Drone warfare "will seem quaint" the day the People's Liberation Army debuts genetically enhanced troops.
- Opportunities for greater collaboration already exist, namely through NATO's innovation accelerator, DIANA.
- Congress should require the Defense Department to incorporate military-relevant biotech into wargaming and exercises.
What they're saying: U.S. leadership should consider biotech a distinct domain of warfare, according to Young, a Marine Corps veteran.
- "Imagine if we could, in theater, biomanufacture shelf-stable blood, thereby seizing on that golden hour in which we need to provide emergency medical attention to warfighters who are under duress," he told Axios.
- "Imagine a world in which we are able to develop new energetics through biological means, with far more thrust — power — to extend the range of our existing missile systems."
- "That would, obviously, change all sorts of calculations of warfare."
Reality check: There's a lack of stateside industrial capacity. And moving from lab to market is an expensive ordeal, a red flag for increasingly risk-averse investors.
What we're watching: What makes it into the National Defense Authorization Act, a logical home for this report's suggestions.
The bottom line: "Just like the Industrial Age, just like the Information Age, this is the Biotechnology Age. Most people do not know that," Paul Arcangeli, a commissioner and former House Armed Services Committee staff director, said in an interview.
- "In 10 years, people will be surprised what biotechnology will be doing for them."
