Biodigital Today and Tomorrow

DISCLAIMER
Policy Horizons Canada (Policy Horizons) is a strategic foresight organization within the Government of Canada with a mandate to help the Government develop future-oriented policy and programs that are more robust and resilient in the face of disruptive change on the horizon. The content of this document does not necessarily represent the views of the Government of Canada, or participating departments and agencies.

Table of contents

• Foreword
• Executive summary
• Introduction
• Food
• Health
• Environment
• Security
• Manufacturing
• COVID-19—an unexpected accelerator
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgements
• Endnotes

Foreword

The COVID-19 pandemic is proving to be a powerful driver of change. It is spurring biodigital innovations such as nearly real-time biosurveillance of virus spread and mutations; virus tracking via smartphone; and messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccine development at unprecedented speed. Biodigital convergence, the merging of biological systems and digital technologies, is challenging the way we understand ourselves and the world in which we live.

Building on our first report, Exploring Biodigital Convergence, this report lays out some of the changes we might see as the biodigital convergence matures and gives rise to new realities. It explores the potential impact of biodigital convergence on sectors such as health, food and agriculture, the environment, manufacturing, and security. It could have implications across many policy areas: global trade, healthcare, the shift to a low-carbon economy, natural resource management, and many more.

Policy Horizons Canada (Policy Horizons) does not provide policy recommendations or advice. Guided by its mandate, it explores what might happen in the future policy landscape, to help the Government of Canada develop future-oriented policy and programs, and to prepare for possible radical and disruptive change.

We hope you will find this report insightful and thought-provoking. By reflecting on what might happen, we can support Canadians and decision makers in considering which futures we want and which ones we want to avoid.

On behalf of Policy Horizons Canada, I would like to thank those who generously shared their time, knowledge, and thoughts with us.

Kristel Van der Elst

Director General,
Policy Horizons Canada

Executive Summary

Biological and digital systems are coming together in profound ways, creating a new domain called the biodigital. Digital technology and living things are increasingly able to communicate with each other. We can embed digital technology into living organisms, and incorporate biological components into new technologies. Genetic modification of the natural world for climate change mitigation, environmental remediation, and biodiversity conservation may however raise ethical considerations.

The contours of the coming biodigital era are becoming clearer. This report explores change drivers and how biodigital convergence could transform five economic sectors and areas of life.

1. Food
2. Health
3. Environment
4. Security
5. Manufacturing

It examines some of the changes we could see in each area, how we could experience significant disruption in the future, and what policy considerations might emerge. This report also discusses how the COVID-19 pandemic may be accelerating the transition to a biodigital world.

The COVID-19 pandemic is acting as a driver of change, accelerating the transition to a biodigital world. It has increased the awareness of biology and its array of uses among people, governments, and industry. It reveals the risks of misinformation and the need for bioliteracy. It pushes biodefence capabilities and national self-sufficiency to the forefront of government agendas. And it has forced societies to re-evaluate the balance between biosecurity and personal freedoms.

The speed of biodigital convergence in the coming years will depend not only on technological progress but social acceptance—and the pandemic has shown that unexpected events can trigger rapid shifts in what is widely seen as acceptable or desirable. In the future, we may not see digital technologies and biological systems as separate, but rather woven together, further normalizing the biodigital world that future generations may inherit.

This report continues the work of our Exploring Biodigital Convergence¹ scoping report, which explored how biological systems and digital technology are converging in ways that could change how we live, understand and make sense of our lives, evolve, and possible capabilities and characteristics of biodigital innovations. We identified three ways in which biodigital convergence is emerging:

1. Full physical integration of biological and digital entities
   When digital technology is embedded in organisms, or biological components are incorporated into technologies. Examples include robots with biological brains, digital implants in humans, and neurological control systems in insects. Digital technologies can enhance the natural capabilities of living things.
2. Coevolution of biological and digital technologies
   When advancements in one domain enable progress in another, and vice versa. Both digital technology and the natural world provide scaffolding for each other, furthering shared breakthroughs and a coevolution. Examples include new understanding of how brains work, inspiring the development of neural networks; and artificial intelligence (AI) finding patterns in gene sequences that build our understanding of what genes do.
3. Cognitive shift of biological and digital systems
   An evolution of perspective, where we begin to normalize the convergence of the natural world and digital technology. We may see the two as an integrated new domain. Advances in our understanding of biological systems and in the creation of new digital capabilities such as AI enables the biodigital conceptual convergence.

In this report, we delve deeper into how biodigital convergence could reshape five areas: food, health, environment, security, and manufacturing. We examine sectors in their current form, how biodigital convergence is changing each sector, what might change these sectors in the future, outline critical uncertainties and future possibilities, as well as policy considerations.

During our work on this report, we lived through the first global emergency of the biodigital era. In the final section, we reflect on the COVID-19 pandemic as a significant accelerator for the biodigital revolution—increasing investment in research, raising public awareness of biological threats, shifting perceptions of what is socially possible, and putting public health at the centre of national governance.

The contours of the coming biodigital era are slowly becoming clearer and the transition to that era will inevitably be disruptive. By thinking now about the possible trajectories of biodigital convergence, we hope to reduce risks, and harness possibilities for Canada and the world.

Traditional agriculture relies on land, water, and a suitable climate. In the future, foods could be manufactured anywhere in labs and indoor vertical farms. This could fundamentally reshape the agricultural sector, international trade, and migration, as well as people’s relationships with land, animals, and food.

As the world’s population grows², demand for and trade³ in food are expected to rise. Many countries may face food security challenges brought on by climate change, as extreme weather events and diseases affect traditional agricultural production. Regional conflicts may also disrupt global food production and trade. Food systems also have environmental impacts—land use, deforestation, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions—while opaque supply chains⁴ raise the risk of food-borne illnesses⁵.

How is biodigital convergence changing food?

Biodigital innovations have the potential to modify how we produce food, integrate new types of food onto the market, and disrupt existing supply chains.

What follows are some of the ways biodigital is changing how we produce, grow, manufacture, and understand human nutrition and food.

Lab-grown food. Cellular agriculture creates bioidentical animal products—such as seafood, meat, and dairy—in a lab. This involves culturing animal cells in a bioreactor and growing them into fat and muscle tissue. Lab-grown meat and plant-based meat alternatives can also be three-dimensionally printed (3D-printed)⁶.

Lab-grown beef burgers are approaching cost parity⁷ with traditional burgers, especially when meat cells are combined with plant protein. In 2020, the world’s first restaurant serving lab-grown meat⁸ opened in Tel Aviv⁹, and Kentucky Fried Chicken announced plans to sell 3D-printed nuggets¹⁰. Companies are working on lab-grown salmon¹¹, tuna¹², shrimp¹³, dairy products¹⁴, pet food¹⁵ and even human breast milk¹⁶—a potential alternative to infant formula. Scaling bioreactors remains the main technological challenge¹⁷, but Chinese¹⁸ and Israeli¹⁹ organizations are investing heavily.

Individualized diets based on DNA profiling. Advances in nutrigenomics²⁰—the study of relationships between genes, nutrition, and health—could allow people to make health, diet, and lifestyle choices based on their genetic profile.

Start-ups are offering personalized dietary advice²¹ based on DNA, lifestyle information, and gut microbiome analysis. A restaurant in Tokyo is using analysis of customers’ saliva, urine, and feces to evaluate their nutritional requirements and 3D print biome-based bespoke sushi²². Nestlé²³ is investing in microbiome research and AI that can create personalized care plans. People can buy vitamin pills tailored²⁴ to their genome, and one day may 3D print these types of supplements at home. The decreasing²⁵ cost of genome sequencing will make personalized diets and lifestyle choices more widely accessible.

Precision and smart farming. A combination of technologies could influence or alter how agriculture industries function—and how and where we grow food. Agricultural productivity²⁶ could become more precise with technology—from robots inspecting individual plants²⁷, identifying pests and diseases²⁸, or herding farm animals²⁹, to data³⁰-optimizing fertilizer inputs, to blockchain-enabled origin tracing³¹. Indoor vertical farms in which AI³² controls light and temperature can grow hundreds of times as much food per acre as traditional agriculture, while using far less water.

Singapore has launched a campaign³³ to produce 30% of its food supply by 2030 through lab-grown food and vertical farming³⁴. Companies from the U.S. to China³⁵ are exploring how Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) technology might customize crops to particular conditions and improve resilience³⁶ against climate change impacts.

What might change in food systems in the future?

As the biodigital convergence advances and matures, it could reshape food systems in significant ways:

Grow anything, anywhere, anytime. Agriculture has always depended on the availability of land mass, water, and specific climatic and geographic conditions. It is limited by the growing seasons and vulnerable to variables beyond a farmer’s control—from weather to pests and diseases.

With new biodigital innovations, these constraints may no longer shape agricultural productivity in the future. Lab-grown meat technology³⁷ could be located anywhere, as can vertical farming where artificial intelligence (AI) oversees³⁸ gene-edited crops grown in precisely controlled environments.

Nations pursue self-sufficiency. Trade could change as nations pursue food self-sufficiency. Food-importing countries may opt to produce more food³⁹ within their own borders, rather than importing it from areas with good natural growing conditions, to reduce their vulnerability to trade disputes⁴⁰ or supply disruptions.

As more than 75%⁴¹ of agricultural land is used for livestock farming, low-yield lands could become stranded assets and be replaced by cellular agriculture alternatives. We could increasingly produce food on demand and near consumers, potentially in small-scale home bioreactors. This could substantially reduce the demand for food transportation or distribution.

Diet merges into preventive healthcare. Better understanding of the human genome and biome may transform nutrition and influence healthcare, giving people increasingly detailed information to highly individualize their diets and maximize their health.

Increasing the amount of genome and biome data that is being collected and studied could advance our understanding of the human body as an intricate system and could facilitate preventative medicine. A database of consumers’ genomes may become a competitive advantage for some firms.

Critical uncertainties and future possibilities

Various factors could affect the scale and nature of acceptance or rejection of biodigital innovations. The following outlines some possible uncertainties that may lead to different future scenarios.

Societal acceptance: Will there be a societal consensus on adopting new technologies?

• Consumers may increasingly want to buy healthy⁴², environmentally friendly, ethically produced foods. Given that vertical farms need less land, water, and pesticides—and that lab-cultured meat does not involve the methane emissions of farmed animals, or the ethical or health issues associated with factory farming—could we see an uptake in new food production methods?
• Could negative early experiences of CRISPR-modified crops and cultured meat affect public acceptance? Will CRISPR plant editing be more or less publicly accepted⁴³ than previous means of genetically modifying organisms?
• How might we benchmark ethical considerations and values alongside biodigital economic possibilities?

Business ecosystem: How could existing players reshape their business models? How might related sectors evolve, and what new players could emerge?

• Will the existing big agricultural companies adapt and maintain their position? Or will new entrants from other sectors, like pharmaceuticals and big techs, overtake them?
• Could technology’s increased role enable a dominant position for large tech companies in the agriculture industry⁴⁴? If so, how could this affect food supply chains and consumer choices?

Labour market readiness: Will there be sufficient talent to develop new markets and activities? Where will biodigital talent reside?

• How will labour markets adapt if digitalization of food production makes certain agricultural jobs obsolete while creating demand for new skills?
• How readily will education programs for agricultural science and food science incorporate biodigital technologies like vertical farming, AI, robotics, or lab-grown food?

Policy considerations

The rise of the biodigital convergence could affect many policy areas. The following are not policy recommendations, but rather considerations, questions, and thought-provoking ideas.

Food safety regulations and nutrition guidance

• New types of food production, manufacturing, and supply chains could lead to new packaging, storage, transportation, cooling, handling, preparation, cooking, and sanitizing procedures. Actors could also use blockchain technology to ensure traceability and make the supply chain more transparent. Blockchain could also help consumers access information on ingredients.
• New categories of plant-based and animal-based foods could emerge from using biodigital production modes and biodata to produce new types of personalized food. This could affect what we consider healthy food, current nutrition guides like the Canada Food Guide, as well as lead to new nutrition facts on labels.

International trade, food sovereignty, and supply chains

• Biodigital food technologies may help countries that heavily rely on food imports to improve their food sovereignty. This could reduce food trade at the global level and have economic impacts on the largest-producing countries of agricultural commodities. The export-import potential of biodigital food products could also lead trade partners to rethink food labeling.
• Biodigital food production modes could disrupt existing supply chains at the national and global level. Increased local biodigital food production could also reduce the need for food distribution and transportation.
• The rising digitalization and automation of food production processes and ingredients via emerging biodigital innovations, such as 3D food printers and online platforms, could substantially increase personal and commercial food production capacity. Home biodigital food production could require new safety measures. Countries that have relied on arable land and rural agriculture economies may need to examine the economic sustainability of traditional food production in the face of new food production possibilities.

Intellectual property & privacy

• Digital technologies like AI and big data analysis could increase the number of patents for customized⁴⁵ flavors⁴⁶ and recipes⁴⁷.
• Secured genomic databanks could become increasingly common. People may be concerned about privacy implications and sharing genome data with food supply chain actors.
• Global compensation and protection systems may help prevent biodigital food-cloning practices. For example, sequencing appellation⁴⁸ food goods for local production or growing Kobe beef in a lab.

Environmental footprint and spatial development

• Agricultural land may be stranded and repurposed as we produce more food in vertical farming facilities or through cellular agriculture.
• Gene-edited crops and smart farming (sensors, robots) could reduce fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide use.
• The environmental footprint of emerging biodigital food production and consumption, such as cellular agriculture, gene-edited crops, vertical farming, and smart agriculture may be different from that of the current food system. New innovations may aid climate change goals. However, transitions can be costly and could increase the demand for electricity.

Biodigital convergence could rapidly advance targeted treatments, and precision medicine based on genomic profiles—leading to improved and targeted preventive care as well as highly efficient treatments for disease. At the same time, biodigital convergence also gives rise to inclusivity and ethical considerations, among others.

Healthcare costs are projected to continue increasing over the next 15 years due to factors such as population growth, reproductive problems⁴⁹, ageing, degenerative diseases, and rising use of expensive, newly patented medicines⁵⁰. The sector’s labour shortage⁵¹ is expected to continue as demand for home care grows, and healthcare worker burnout continues as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic⁵². On the current trajectory, hospitals and healthcare systems will continue to be overburdened, the scope of public health may grow, and emerging innovations may fall within the scope of health mandates, inflicting more pressure on public health systems.

How is biodigital convergence changing health?

Technological innovations in the biodigital space will continue to mature and combine. The following section outlines some innovations that could affect the integrated and complex future of human health.

Synthetic organs and digital implants. Customized body parts and implants could offer new transplant options. In 2019, over 4000 Canadians⁵³ were on a waiting list for an organ transplant. Human organs can now be 3D-printed⁵⁴, or grown in genetically modified pigs⁵⁵. EU regulators approved⁵⁶ the first totally artificial heart in 2020. Artificial blood vessels⁵⁷ could help treat cardiovascular disease. Artificial skin, made from stretchable electronics⁵⁸ that can sense heat and pressure, could improve prosthetics and skin grafts. Such technologies could enable people not only to fix medical problems, but to obtain customized body parts with enhanced capabilities.

Brain implants that can be recharged wirelessly⁵⁹ could transform the treatment of neurological diseases. Implanted chips are already being used to monitor health and unlock smartphones. Implants such as Neuralink⁶⁰ could expand the human senses, allowing us to “feel”⁶¹ bionic limbs, or interact with virtual spaces in new ways. They may also lead to new treatments for mental illnesses like depression⁶². Brain-computer interfaces allow us to communicate with AI-enabled devices: for example, it can enable blind people to perceive images⁶³ through an artificial eye. These technologies could help repair or enhance the human body.

The CRISPRization of humans. As a research tool⁶⁴, CRISPR gene editing helps us understand DNA’s role in human diseases. Medical researchers are exploring its potential to fight viruses⁶⁵, destroy cancer⁶⁶ cells, overcome immune problems that interfere with potential gene therapy⁶⁷, and treat conditions such as acne⁶⁸ and blindness⁶⁹. CRISPR-off technology allows us to turn gene expression off⁷⁰, effectively stopping a person from getting a disease to which they are genetically predisposed, such as Alzheimer’s. Further, it may be possible to turn off epigenetic markers while leaving the DNA strand intact.

CRISPR may increasingly give people the ability to code their own DNA, and that of their children. Some parents may wish to give their children resistance to diseases, enhanced intelligence, and other abilities.

Public opinion research⁷¹ finds a high level of support for using the technology to prevent rare genetic illnesses in babies, but opposition to using it to improve a baby’s intelligence. Support or rejection of gene editing depends in part on one’s nationality, gender, demographics, religion, and education. Varying levels⁷² of ethical consideration and debate exist surrounding genetically altering offspring. There are currently widespread international bans on human use of the technology, but the World Health Organization has an advisory committee⁷³ looking at global standards, including oversight and ethical considerations for human genome editing.

Tracking human health in real time. The health tech market is actively innovating to find solutions that can support preventative health actions. Wearables that monitor physical health can increasingly track and compile more health data in real time. AI can track moods and mental health⁷⁴ by analyzing our voices and facial expressions. Researchers are developing DNA testing kits that plug into smartphones⁷⁵ and could help track disease.

Machine learning⁷⁶ could potentially process data in the cloud that is automatically collected from nano-scale sensors, monitors, and implants in a patient’s body. Increasing knowledge about the human microbiome—the tens of trillions⁷⁷ of microorganisms that live inside the human body—is leading to more treatments⁷⁸, research, and lifestyle prescriptions.

What might change in healthcare systems in the future?

As the biodigital convergence advances and matures, it could reshape health systems in significant ways:

Regenerative medicine. We can observe the ability to regrow lost limbs or repair damaged organs in some animals like lizards and amphibians. The same cellular signaling pathways we find in animals capable of regeneration are also present in humans⁷⁹, and modifications may lead to tissue growth rather than scarring. Stem cell research is also on its way to growing whole organs—starting with smaller organoids⁸⁰ that can currently perform some function of the larger organs.

Biodatabases. DNA databases could become a source of income and health security. In the coming years, it could be possible and relatively simple to collect DNA information using a smartphone. As biodata becomes more ubiquitous, questions surrounding who collects, uses, retains, and discloses it will become pivotal. Applications (apps), smartwatches, and phones are already collecting biodata outside the traditional healthcare sector; an extension of this data collection would be commercial and consumer engagement with biomic or genomic data. DNA data marketplaces⁸¹ based on blockchains⁸² could emerge, allowing individuals—or designated data trusts—to share genomic information with corporations, academic researchers, and even governments in exchange for benefits or payment.

DNA databases could provide new insights into the complex links between genes and disease. Genomic data could be a source of power or economic advantage in future economies, as health and healthcare continue to increase in priority. Open biodata or platform-gathering big data from individuals could support the development of new therapies, but may also create privacy⁸³ and accountability risks. Opportunities to collaborate and share data for greater medical efficacy and care could face challenges in individual data protection and trust in the system. Genome data could enable detection⁸⁴ before the manifestation of disease, furthering long-term preventative cost savings in healthcare systems.

The pharmaceutical industry may begin shifting away⁸⁵ from chemical substances as a source of new drugs, and explore manipulation of living organisms’ DNA as treatment⁸⁶. DNA databases⁸⁷ could become a strategic asset and input for the development of new drugs and therapies.

Remote healthcare services. Canadians could access more healthcare services remotely. COVID-19 has brought telemedicine and digital health tools into the mainstream, making patients more comfortable using technology to manage their health needs. In the next 10 to 15 years, technological development and the increased proportion of digitally competent people could dramatically accelerate remote healthcare provision.

Implanted sensors could monitor individuals’ health around the clock, sending data to the cloud to be analyzed for diagnosis and advice—along with other data, such as from air quality sensors in the workspace, or mental health analysis based on online behaviour.

People take control of their evolution. Germline editing—that is, editing genes that can be passed on to the next generation—is currently banned in most jurisdictions⁸⁸. However, this could change over time as this technology more safely eliminates or improves resilience to diseases, which could improve wellbeing and reduce healthcare costs. In addition, emerging low-cost biodigital devices and services could allow individuals to experience at-home⁸⁹ germline editing.

As a first step, using CRISPR to edit out genetic predispositions to disease could be seen as an extension of the current pre-implantation screening practice in in vitro fertilization. A next step could be to insert preferred physical or psychological traits with high precision, by editing the parent’s germline before conception rather than the embryo. In some countries, governments could seek to incentivize citizens to have healthier babies; over time, this may lead to a cognitive shift, where people consider procreating “naturally” to be reckless.

How we want to evolve as a species and what consequences could emerge may become important ethical considerations. Could eugenics⁹⁰—the process of eliminating undesired genes from a population—re-emerge as a moral dilemma?

Critical uncertainties and future possibilities

Various factors could affect the scale and nature of acceptance or rejection of biodigital innovations. The following outlines some possible uncertainties that may lead to different future scenarios.

Societal acceptance: Will there be a societal consensus on adopting new technologies?

• How concerned might people be about the security and privacy implications⁹⁴ of health data access?
• To what extent might lab-grown brains⁹⁵ and other lab-created organisms already be or become conscious? What ethical implications could arise in future health sciences—or even art⁹⁶—that uses synthetic biology?
• To what extent might the ability to alter our own genes and brain functions call into question who we are as humans?

Business ecosystem: How might existing players change, how could related sectors evolve, and what new players could emerge?

• To what extent could big tech firms dominate health and healthcare, as Amazon’s logistics and Google’s machine learning capabilities become increasingly important at the research and development (R&D) and healthcare service level?
• Could individuals monetize their DNA data on an online marketplace? Could DNA marketplaces shift the financial gain of biodata sharing from biodatabase firms to individuals?

Economic rollout: How might policies, standards, and ideologies around the world differ, and what consequences or advantages in industry and socioeconomic status could emerge as a result of these differences?

• Could uneven access to new human augmentation technologies give rise to new forms of economic growth, inequality, and discrimination?
• Could human augmentation contribute to productivity and be considered a competitive advantage? How would international labour and employment agreements respond to the possible uneven global adoption of human augmentation?

Policy considerations

The rise of the biodigital convergence could affect many policy areas. The following are not policy recommendations, but rather considerations, questions, and thought-provoking ideas.

Role of regulation

• Augmentation for work, school, or sports situations could give some people unfair advantages.
• AI outputs from black box machine learning⁹⁷ could prove problematic in applying AI-based digital therapeutic technologies that can continuously learn and self-modify. It may be difficult to trust the outputs without ensuring a lack of bias in a diagnosis.
• Networks of biofoundries around the world could reduce the effectiveness of national regulations. Biodata, automation technology, platforms, and cloud-based labs⁹⁸ could make it easier for organizations to offshore some R&D functions to jurisdictions with or without ethical regulations.

Public sector involvement

• Biodigital innovations that have been developed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic—like health data collection and tracking, and bioproduction, including vaccines, treatments, and supply chains—may be applicable to other public health situations.
• The multi-sectoral implications of CRISPR treatments may require further discussions about their ethics and possible uses in healthcare.

Access to new treatments through public healthcare systems

• Affordability could affect the speed of new models of healthcare delivery, options, and treatments.
• Like other digital technologies, biodigital technologies may require ongoing and regular software support to maintain their effectiveness. Governments may be required to step in if private sector suppliers withdraw their support⁹⁹.

Equitable healthcare access for remote areas

• Telemedicine, remote biosensing, and local bioproduction could offer different possibilities for diagnosis and treatment. In Canada, these medical services may benefit remote or rural areas. Remote collection of biodata in areas with limited access to reliable Internet may be a challenge to universal accessibility.

R&D, data sharing, and privacy

• International agreements and collaboration on the future of health data could result in alliances and disputes.
• Open-source science¹⁰⁰ may challenge existing intellectual property frameworks related to diagnostics, therapies, treatments, and manufacturing.
• The value of biodata may increase with the growing use of AI in drug discovery that relies on that data to generate products.
• There may be international implementation of agreements, such as access and benefit-sharing systems¹⁰¹ under the Convention on Biological Diversity¹⁰² for example, that affect access to genetic resources from biodiversity that may be used for new drugs and therapeutics.
• The digital nature of people’s biodata, and the ability to easily transfer or access it via online platforms could drive discussions about biodata sharing, storage, access, and privacy.

Climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss are widely recognized as urgent global issues. Today’s unsustainable production and consumption modes are endangering long-term socioeconomic wellbeing. Biodigital capabilities could increase our capacity to connect with and monitor the natural world. It could also expand our understanding of the interconnectedness of all living things. Genetic modification of the natural world for climate change mitigation, environmental remediation, and biodiversity conservation may however raise ethical considerations. Furthermore, there may be unintended consequences involved with the release of modified organisms in natural environments.

Few countries are on course to reach their carbon emission reduction targets. The cost of extreme weather events¹⁰³ caused by climate change¹⁰⁴—such as fires, droughts, floods, and hurricanes—may continue to rise. Other environmental crises may also intensify, from plastic pollution to biodiversity loss, to pollution of air, soil, and water. Despite a trend towards voluntary corporate disclosures¹⁰⁵ and private sector investment against climate change, public policy remains key to environmental protection.

How is biodigital convergence changing the environment?

Biodigital innovations will continue to mature and combine. The following section outlines some innovations that could affect the future of ecosystems, biodiversity, and climate change.

Hybrid biodiversity. People may augment natural ecosystems and biodiversity to increase resilience. Gene editing¹⁰⁶ is enabling the creation of new forms of biodiversity, from plants that glow in the dark¹⁰⁷ to nanobionic sensors that monitor arsenic levels¹⁰⁸ in soil. Researchers are using CRISPR gene editing for projects such as improving the resilience of forest ecosystems¹⁰⁹, and bringing the woolly mammoth¹¹⁰ back from extinction.

Gene drives¹¹¹ allow people to introduce certain genetic traits into an animal or insect population. This could help control invasive species¹¹², restore coral reefs¹¹³, or prevent insect-borne diseases. For example, Florida released 750 million genetically engineered mosquitoes¹¹⁴ as an alternative to using insecticide. These interventions are not without risk, as it may be difficult to stop their spread once modified genes are released into nature.

Environmental clean-ups through synthetic biology. Scientists are developing jellyfish¹¹⁵ that can detoxify contaminated ocean; bacteria- and yeast¹¹⁶-based smart materials that can sense environmental contaminants; and microbes that can destroy¹¹⁷ pollutants in soil and water, recover rare earth metals¹¹⁸ from polluted land, and clean up oil spills¹¹⁹.

Carbon dioxide can be extracted from the atmosphere by genetically engineered weeds¹²⁰ and fast-growing algae¹²¹, cultivated into biomass in specially designed bioreactors, and then harvested as fuel, fertilizers, oils, and plastics.

Internet of Living Things. Although in its early stages, it is possible to discern the beginnings of an “Internet of Living Things” (IoLT) similar to the current Internet of Things (IoT). Plants’ sensitivity to chemicals, combined with technology, opens up new capabilities. For instance, spinach can send an email to warn about landmines¹²². If its roots detect a specific explosive chemical, the plant emits a signal that is picked up by a sensor, triggering an email to researchers.

CRISPR has been used to edit genes to store binary information—the kind used in computers—in DNA form, allowing researchers to encode the phrase “hello world” into an E. coli cell¹²³. Microsoft is exploring the future potential to store data¹²⁴ in biochemical systems; theoretically, a gram of DNA could hold 215,000 terabytes¹²⁵ of data, which people could read using portable DNA sequencers¹²⁶.

What might change in the environment in the future?

As the biodigital convergence advances and matures, it could reshape the environment, biodiversity, and ecosystems in significant ways:

Modifying the environment. Biodigital interventions could increase the value of ecosystem services. The value of ecosystem services¹²⁷—the benefits we gain from a functioning natural environment, from clean water to flood protection—has an estimated worth of 1.5 times more than the global GDP.

Artificial biodiversity could add even more value, from microorganisms that break down plastic pollutants¹²⁸ and oil¹²⁹, to glow-in-the-dark trees¹³⁰ that replace street lights, to soils that absorb more water¹³¹ to mitigate flooding, and trees that are more resistant to forest fires. Technologically enhanced biodiversity could transform ecosystems that are currently uninhabitable to humans, and provide alternatives to geoengineering¹³² for tackling climate change.

Environmental biosensors and data collection. Better data could transform environmental monitoring and governance. Environmental protection laws have historically legalized environmental harms from human activity by setting pollution emission caps. Genetically modified plants could monitor anti-pollution laws, detecting pollutants and triggering alerts to the relevant authorities. Biodigital sensors, drones, robotics, and sequencing of DNA fragments in the environment¹³³ could help monitor air, water, and soil quality more widely and in greater detail, including at remote extraction sites. Releasing smart biodigital living entities into ecosystems could share real-time signals with authorities, identifying harmful substances, microbes, or pollutants. This could potentially replace or support pollution emission standards and lead to personalized, real-time environmental legislation.

Additionally, emerging fields of study like imageomics¹³⁴—where machine learning is used to extract biological traits from wildlife images of living organisms captured by drones or uploaded on platforms such as eBird¹³⁵ and iNaturalist¹³⁶—could rapidly improve our understanding of biological processes and detect early signs of harm to biodiversity.

Environmental DNA¹³⁷ (eDNA) can identify species in an area without directly observing them. This could allow for better understanding of the environmental impacts of proposed projects and policies¹³⁸, as well as environmental monitoring¹³⁹ of ongoing human activities. It could also lead to new ways of determining the economic value of living things, illustrating the value of ecosystem services. Moreover, it could help track how species¹⁴⁰ move in response to climate change and facilitate early detection of invasive species. Collecting eDNA in seafood markets may improve wildlife crime investigation¹⁴¹ techniques by detecting the sale of endangered and protected fish species. The emergence of eDNA might call for reflections on who controls that data and what uses are ethical.

Critical uncertainties and future possibilities

Various factors could affect the scale and nature of acceptance or rejection of biodigital innovations. The following outlines some possible uncertainties that may lead to different future scenarios.

Societal acceptance: Will there be a societal consensus on adopting new technologies?

• As the next generation of children grows up familiar with digital and biological technologies, will public consciousness shift towards a realization that humans are an integral part of larger ecological systems? Could there be a wider recognition of the importance of safeguarding ecosystems for their socioeconomic value?
• Might there be backlash to greater modification of the environment? By whom, and what form could it take?
• If it becomes feasible¹⁴⁷ to store data cost-effectively in the DNA of living organisms, could some plants play a new market-based role in the digital economy?
• Would we want to establish new forms of sensing and connecting with nature?
• If portable sequencers become accessible and cheap, would people use them to assess the state of biodiversity or discover new pathogens?

Environmental ecosystem: How might the environment be affected and how might it react? Should the precautionary principle be applied?

• How great are the risks of unforeseen consequences? For example, new artificial microorganisms could disrupt the food chain, create new forms of pollution, cause new allergies, or themselves become a form of waste.

Policy considerations

The rise of the biodigital convergence could affect many policy areas. The following are not policy recommendations, but rather considerations, questions, and thought-provoking ideas.

Economic development

• Environmental sequencing could reveal causality between economic activities and their impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems.
• Land could become a key tool for companies to mitigate their environmental footprint with artificial biodiversity, using it to compensate for the environmental impacts of economic activity.
• An IoLT system could be deployed at large scale and be dominated, like the Internet, by a small number of powerful companies.

Intellectual property

• Current intellectual property rights may have to shift to encompass entities in nature, raising questions about whether to consider new organisms a private or a public good.
• With better sequencing technologies available, governments may have to clarify at the international level rules regarding the access, ownership, and benefit sharing of digital sequence information¹⁴⁸, and its legal status¹⁴⁹ under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Environmental regulation & enforcement

• New regulatory frameworks at various levels may affect the introduction of new genetically modified organisms. Rules on reproduction of new modified species could vary.
• Migration of genetically modified species could be difficult to control across jurisdictional borders.
• Emerging digital and biosensors could act as tools to monitor environmental quality and biodiversity loss. Creating communication channels with the help of digital technologies between living organisms and regulators could facilitate rule enforcement.

Emerging biodigital innovations and capabilities are creating both new frontiers and possible concerns in the field of security and defence. With almost five billion people connected to the Internet, digital surveillance and data collection have substantially increased over the last decade. The rise of biodata may add a new layer of complexity in securing potentially valuable personal data. The access to more data may also facilitate criminal investigation and potentially create a more secure society.

The IoT is being deployed around the world in smart cities, which allow authorities and private actors to monitor citizen movements. These technologies have led to privacy issues and much controversy¹⁵⁰. Combined with the rapidly declining cost of DNA sequencing, a large amount of biodata could be generated over the next decade, facilitating biosurveillance in the future. Moreover, the rise of DIY bio-capabilities and the access to emerging biotechnologies could facilitate new forms of biowarfare and bioterrorism.

How is biodigital convergence changing security?

Biodigital innovations will continue to mature and combine. The following section outlines some innovations that could affect the future of security.

The rise of biodatabases. The adoption of biodatabases and DNA biodata by private or public entities may have privacy and national defence risks. Because of its nature and the type of information it contains, biodata could lead to new tiers of threat. Consent, access, and nefarious use could pose severe risks for individuals, and for security and defence operations to manage. The cost of gene sequencing is rapidly declining: in 2020, a Chinese firm claimed it could sequence a full genome for $100¹⁵¹. Some governments have established DNA databases: the U.S. has accumulated around 14 million¹⁵² samples on criminal suspects, with an overrepresentation of black men; and China routinely¹⁵³ collects DNA from male citizens for predictive policing. Researchers are working on using DNA to predict¹⁵⁴ how a person’s face will look, so DNA databases can inform surveillance through facial recognition software.

Many people voluntarily give their DNA in exchange for information on their health or ancestry, or to support medical research, such as the FinnGen study¹⁵⁵. While some human genetic-testing companies have comprehensive¹⁵⁶ privacy policies, many others do not¹⁵⁷. Some judges have ordered¹⁵⁸ companies to share customers’ DNA with law enforcement agencies, and nearly half of Americans support police access to private DNA databases. Biodatabases can be a useful tool for forensics. Cold cases over a decade old may be reopened¹⁵⁹ as DNA data is more abundant and easier to access. Theoretically, bad actors may be able to hack¹⁶⁰ into and identify individuals in open-source databases¹⁶¹, to which people upload their DNA in search of relatives or medical studies.

International entities trade surveillance technology abroad without similar regulations as arms dealing, even though many consider the impacts of technology to pose similar dangers. Many are calling for DNA databases and facial recognition technology to be classified as weapons¹⁶² in an attempt to regulate this global trade and monitor their use by authoritarian regimes.

The race between biothreats and biodefence. Much like the Internet, biodigital convergence is seeing a new and continuing struggle between attack and defence. The U.S. has classified gene editing as a potential weapon of mass destruction¹⁶³ and the FBI has a biocrime department. New technologies can indicate when a person is becoming ill¹⁶⁴, and enable early detection¹⁶⁵ of which virus or bacteria they may have. The U.S. Army is looking at wearable¹⁶⁶ biosensors for soldiers to detect biothreats. While it can be difficult to differentiate natural from artificially engineered pathogens, the technology is improving¹⁶⁷.

It is increasingly feasible for individuals to sequence and synthesize DNA, with DIY gene-editing kits retailing online¹⁶⁸ for as little as US$169. Aims of the DIY bio movement include making insulin and other medicines more affordable¹⁶⁹. However, DIY bio also increases the risk of either deliberately or accidentally releasing DIY pathogens¹⁷⁰. California has become the first U.S. state to pass a law¹⁷¹ specifically to restrict the use of CRISPR, but regulations differ from place to place.

What might change in security in the future?

As the biodigital convergence advances and matures, it could reshape security and defence systems in significant ways:

Modern biothreats. Weaponization of biotechnology could lead to a rise in threats to society. While only organizations with significant resources and expertise can hope to develop a nuclear weapon, it may be increasingly feasible for individuals or small groups to develop potentially devastating bioweapons, such as a version of the Ebola virus modified to spread more easily. It is harder to anticipate the potential for scale and collateral damage of new bioweapons compared to more traditional weapons.

Adverse actors with a long-term agenda could invest in or infiltrate start-ups in the biotech field, while cyberattacks on biological research institutes¹⁷² could allow access to knowledge that can be weaponized using readily available technologies and materials. Vaccine researchers, for example, routinely create synthetic viruses to test strategies. The recent reproduction of the extinct horsepox virus¹⁷³ raised concerns that smallpox could be synthesized and weaponized. Similarly, research into neurotoxins such as tetrodotoxin¹⁷⁴—produced by pufferfish—could inform the development of bioweapons.

Terrorist groups and rogue nations could also target a nation’s food supply with bioweapons: agroterrorism¹⁷⁵ could involve pathogens that affect cultivated crops or forests¹⁷⁶.

The rise of biosurveillance. Biological threats require new ways of thinking about monitoring and border control. With a significant increase in international trade, we may need to implement intelligent biodetection systems to monitor and give timely warnings about new viruses, bacteria, or other genetically engineered pathogens. New biosensing technology could be deployed at borders in an attempt to protect them against biological threats. Synthetic biology techniques and raw materials are dual-use, raising questions about regulation of international trade in resources such as yeast cultures and algae strains. Raw biomaterials may need new types of border oversight and tracking, as their end products could vary.

Biological threats may impact national defence priorities, as nations pivot to create biopreparedness. However, biothreats cross many policy domains, including environment, health, national security, and border control.

Critical uncertainties and future possibilities

Various factors could affect the scale and nature of acceptance or rejection of biodigital innovations. The following outlines some possible uncertainties that may lead to different future scenarios.

Societal acceptance: Will there be a societal consensus on adopting new technologies and supporting this industry?

• Could their potential for use in bioweapons sway the public against potentially beneficial uses of synthetic biology and gene-editing technologies?
• Could attitudes towards justice and predictive policing¹⁸⁰ change if it becomes possible to use genetic profiling¹⁸¹ to predict future criminal behaviour with a high degree of confidence from an individual’s DNA?
• Might concerns about biohazards lead more people to move to isolated areas or seek to make their properties more biosecure¹⁸²?
• How might differing cultural attitudes¹⁸³ shape responses to biothreats in different countries?

Business ecosystem: What might be the shape of businesses in this space, how might related sectors evolve, what new players could emerge, and how might they evolve over time?

• Might the nature of biothreats require international standards¹⁸⁴, or will countries develop their own parameters and regulations on capturing, storing, and sharing biodata?
• Could large companies monopolize synthetic biology, since smaller entities may not have the resources to meet the biosafety requirements for high-risk activities?
• How might firms, organizations, and governments reach an appropriate balance between innovation and regulations, bans¹⁸⁵, and moratoriums?
• How would bioinnovation organizations address a higher risk of industrial espionage¹⁸⁶ and cyber attacks¹⁸⁷?

Labour market readiness: Will there be sufficient talent¹⁸⁸ to develop new markets and activities? Where will biodigital talent reside?

• Could we see national defence departments and security firms employ a growing number of “bio” experts?

Economic rollout: How can policies adapt and stay ahead of transitions?

• What new protocols and regulations are needed to securely trade biodata?
• What safety standards and regulations, such as government-issued licenses, might be required to conduct DIY biology?

Policy considerations

The rise of the biodigital convergence could affect many policy areas. The following are not policy recommendations, but rather considerations, questions, and thought-provoking ideas.

Biosecurity and biothreats

• Nefarious actors could learn from failures to detect, mitigate, and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic¹⁸⁹, and the underlying socioeconomic impacts, increasing the likelihood of future biological weapon attacks.
• The digital components of wearable or implanted devices could be hacked, leading to biological harm to the user.
• Open-source science and international sharing of research data could lead to international surveillance and authentication.
• Biodigital convergence could enable individuals to develop low-cost biothreats.
• Some countries might create, redesign, and invest in new infrastructure to prevent or mitigate potential biothreats.

National security

• Disinformation and fake news about emerging biodigital technologies could contribute to changing social attitudes, behaviour, and subsequently become a national security concern.
• With the rise of low-cost DIY biolabs and easier access to technologies like DNA synthesis, front-line emergency services such as policing, firefighters, and paramedics might need training to detect labs, biohazardous organisms, and potentially human augmentation.
• There may be a rise in human augmentation, which could lead some countries to develop augmentation detection capabilities and regulations.

Military and defence

• Defence departments might consider national and global defensive and offensive solutions to potential biothreats, similar to past nuclear and anti-missile defence programs.

Manufacturing was historically based on factory workers who transformed natural resources initially extracted from mines, forests, and waters, or grown on farms. Differences in labour costs and the natural distribution of resources have influenced the shape of our far-reaching global supply chains. Biodigital convergence could transform the natural resource sector through new ways of making and obtaining raw materials and fuels, as well as new manufacturing techniques, potentially easing pressure on natural resources. More localized production and distribution of goods and fuels could reshore manufacturing and reshape trade, disrupting trade patterns and supply chains.

Through the industrial age, international trade agreements and the offshoring of manufacturing activities led to complex supply chains¹⁹⁰. Demand for physical products is expected to increase in the coming years, as the global population grows and standards of living continue to rise. International trade is also expected to increase. Digital technologies¹⁹¹ such as AI, robotics, cloud computing, 3D printing, and mixed reality are already transforming the manufacturing sector. Although labour costs still affect decisions about production location, the Next Digital Economy¹⁹² is expected to revolutionize global value chains. It may also accelerate the transition towards genetic engineering-based biomanufacturing.

How is biodigital convergence changing manufacturing?

Biodigital tech innovations will continue to mature and combine. The following section outlines some innovations that could affect the integrated and complex future of manufacturing.

Smart biofactories reaching industrial scale. Synthetic biology has historically been labour intensive, with many manual and repetitive tasks—but this is starting to change. Private organizations and research institutions are building smart bioproduction facilities that can reach industrial scale.

Robotic lab assistants can perform experiments 1000 times faster¹⁹³ than humans, enabling researchers to focus on the design and creation of genetically modified organisms. Data generated from testing new organisms train and optimize machine learning¹⁹⁴ to predict biological system behaviour and provide recommendations, which could greatly accelerate the development of bioengineering¹⁹⁵. Costs are decreasing as online DNA marketplaces¹⁹⁶ facilitate price comparisons between synthetic DNA producers.

Synthetic biological materials. Synthetic biological materials are disrupting current methods of manufacturing. Innovative biomaterials include a fabric resembling silk¹⁹⁷ produced by genetically engineered microbes; 3D-printed bio leather¹⁹⁸ and wood; biodegradable bricks made from mushrooms¹⁹⁹; bacteria mixed with concrete²⁰⁰ to self-heal and prevent cracking; bacteria that can produce hydrogen²⁰¹ fuel on demand; “soft robots²⁰²” that can move cargo underwater; and 3D-printed gel²⁰³ that changes colour in response to light and can be used for camouflage. AI-designed living machines made from frog skin and muscle cells²⁰⁴ to fit a novel body plan can move autonomously and perform “programmed” tasks. New concepts and innovations are facilitating the physical integration of biological and digital, as well as furthering the cognitive shift we are seeing. Technology and nature may be more readily integrated than we may have thought. Further, technology could be more intuitive and nature more prescriptive than previously imagined.

Synthetic biomaterials could conceivably offer alternatives to almost every raw material used to produce goods—from plastic to wood, metals, chemicals, and even plant fibres like cotton.

Bioenergy made from genetically modified organisms. Despite significant investments over the last decade, algae biofuel remains expensive—but researchers are using AI²⁰⁵ to genetically engineer algae that can produce energy at lower cost, as a potential replacement for fossil fuels. Genetically engineered bacteria can produce hydrogen fuel in biosolar cells using only sunlight and water.

What might change in manufacturing in the future?

As the biodigital convergence advances and matures, it could reshape manufacturing, supply chains, production modes, and consumer behaviour in significant ways:

Biologically sourced natural resources. Genetically engineered microorganisms could reduce demand for natural resources. We may no longer need traditional raw materials to manufacture goods. The primary industry sector—including mining, farming, and forestry—could face competition²⁰⁶ from a range of functional, cost-effective biomaterials. Supported by cloud-based labs, additive manufacturing, computer-aided design software, and automation, biofoundries could provide local genetic engineering services²⁰⁷ (biomanufacturing as a service) and raw biomaterials respectful of local regulations to manufacturers wishing to reduce their supply chain and production infrastructure costs.

With likely lower carbon footprints²⁰⁸, bioalternatives could support efforts to mitigate climate change. A dramatic decline in revenues for oil-producing states could also have geoeconomic and geopolitical implications.

Distributed manufacturing with biofoundries. Distributed biomanufacturing facilities could meet local needs for commodities. Combined with 3D bioprinting, biofoundries could accelerate manufacturers’ transition from a traditional business-to-business model to a business-to-consumer model by providing local people with niche goods like biomaterials, food, and personalized drugs for rare diseases²⁰⁹. In remote areas, biofoundries could produce a range of goods that are currently expensive to import, lowering the cost of living and potentially helping remote communities become more self-sufficient.

If products are increasingly manufactured and transformed locally, the need for extensive physical infrastructure like electrical grids, pipelines, ports, and railways may decrease—and the need for fermentation facilities may increase. This could ease pressure on land and allow goods and services to be more accessible to remote communities. It could also lead to the emergence of new, more local infrastructure to move biomass—such as a beer pipeline²¹⁰.

Decreasing cost of bioengineering. More affordable research equipment could lead to an increase in bioalternative innovation. The declining cost of gene sequencing, DNA synthesis, and automation could enable a rise in open-source DIY biomanufacturing research. Individual entrepreneurs could explore an unprecedented number of new possibilities for goods and services, from health to construction, infrastructure, materials, and furniture.

These new bioalternatives could require regulators to review a suite of regulations related to health and safety, environmental protection, intellectual property, climate change mitigation, and social welfare, while aiming to promote economic growth. Bioengineering’s high capacity for customization could lead producers to adapt their products to accommodate disparities between countries’ regulations.

Critical uncertainties and future possibilities

Various factors could affect the scale and nature of acceptance or rejection of biodigital innovations. The following outlines some possible uncertainties that may lead to different future scenarios.

Societal acceptance: Will there be a societal consensus on adopting new technologies?

• Will consumer preferences and the economic movement towards lower-carbon goods accelerate the shift to biomaterials? How readily might the public accept new genetically engineered products? Could divides emerge along generational, cultural, geographic, or religious lines?

Business ecosystem: How might existing players change, how might related sectors evolve, and what new players could emerge?

• Will biomanufacturing be developed by multinationals or by start-ups?
• How could biomanufacturing redesign supply chains within different industries?

Labour market readiness: Will there be sufficient talent to develop new markets and activities? Where will biodigital talent reside?

• Will there be investment for multidisciplinary collaboration between engineers, digital scientists (such as AI, robotics, connectivity), and biologists?

Economic rollout: How rapidly could policies shift and adapt to enable the transitions?

• What is the potential for new biomaterials to pollute ecosystems? What kind of waste might biofoundries producing novel materials generate? Would it be easier to handle than chemical, industrial (packaging, wood, steel), or nuclear waste?
• How could interprovincial and international trade rules prevent or enable biomaterials from moving across borders?

Policy considerations

The rise of the biodigital convergence could affect many policy areas. The following are not policy recommendations, but rather considerations, questions, and thought-provoking ideas.

Innovation systems

• Biofoundry infrastructure could encourage local entrepreneurship and innovation.
• Intellectual property rules surrounding new biomaterials and engineered microorganisms could either incentivize or slow down R&D and innovation.
• Large firms and e-commerce actors may drive bioconsumption globally by adopting bioalternatives and low-carbon materials like bioplastics or edible packaging.

Economic development

• Federal, provincial, and municipal governments could have different positions on biomanufacturing given the impact on various economic sectors such as agriculture, food transformation, construction, oil and gas, petrochemicals, forestry, fisheries, pharmaceuticals, mining, and transportation.
• The value of traditional materials and natural resources could rapidly decline where an alternative exists.

International collaboration

• Biofoundries could enable new international partnerships and collaboration in R&D, and break traditional commercial alliances between countries and regions.
• International standards on biomaterials research and production could emerge.

Regulation and trade

• Emerging biomaterials and genetically engineered microorganisms could prompt new labeling on consumer products and building materials.
• Environmental regulations on waste management, toxic substances, and transportation may need reviewing to assess new biomaterials made from synthetic biology, engineered tissue, or 3D bioprinting. These may also affect import and export activities.
• Governments may consider the ethics surrounding the use and management of genetically engineered organisms.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, we have been living through the first global-scale biodigital experience. We are simultaneously encountering the profound evolution of biodigital innovations and witnessing the emergence of a new domain. The biodigital technologies discussed in this report exist today and will continue to evolve. The extent to which they will transform our lives in the future depends in part on whether and how quickly they become more capable and affordable, as well as normalized and integrated into society. In other words, transformation is a function of technological possibility and social acceptance.

Often, social acceptance is gradual, as new generations grow up with different attitudes and experiences. Sometimes, events can trigger unexpectedly rapid shifts in what is widely seen as normal. The change in airport security procedures after 9/11 is one example of a security and travel protocol shift as a result of a profound event. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted many rapid changes as a result of the circumstances we face; from the digital transformation²¹⁵ of businesses to increased video meetings²¹⁶, online shopping²¹⁷, food delivery apps²¹⁸, telemedicine²¹⁹, and surveillance²²⁰. Advancements were made in mRNA vaccine deployment²²¹, real-time sequencing²²², and the global cooperation²²³ that led to the rapid production of vaccines due to pressures on the biotechnology sector.

COVID-19 may be ushering in a new era of biothreats in which rapid change becomes more normal. This pandemic is unlikely to be a once-in-a-century occurrence²²⁴, as many factors such as climate change and population growth may contribute to more—and possibly more severe—zoonotic viruses in the future. The global risk of biothreats may rise and experts may increase efforts to understand the variables that lead to the emergence of pandemics.

So what might COVID-19 mean for biodigital convergence?

A rise in bioliteracy

People, governments, scientists²²⁵, and industry are talking about biology like never before. From the R number to mutations in the spike protein, concepts that were niche in early 2020 have become part of mainstream conversation. This rise in bioliteracy could facilitate discussing, explaining, and understanding emerging biodigital technologies like those explored in this report. Similarly, a rise in bioliteracy has contributed to environmental conversations and climate change initiatives, which have also risen in tandem with the pandemic.

More attention and funding for biodigital technologies

COVID-19 has accelerated interest and investment in research in various biological and biodigital innovations, from mRNA vaccines and alternative immunization methods such as nasal sprays²²⁶, to biosurveillance, sensors, genomic therapies²²⁷, and increased understanding of the microbiome²²⁸, toxic stressors²²⁹, and the human immune system. COVID-19 has accelerated the use of biodigital innovations like telemedicine and health apps, and could prompt discussions about biosurveillance or environmental biosensors in the future.

Health and biodefence as a cross-cutting issue for public institutions

People have become acutely aware of the powerful and far-reaching effects of microorganisms. Public health has become central to every aspect of government, from the economy to the environment. Pandemic preparedness is now being considered by some as a national security²³⁰ issue, given the general acceptance that it is only a matter of time before another significant biothreat emerges.

A new era of misinformation risks

COVID-19 demonstrates how conspiracy theories²³¹ can gain traction while scientists are racing to understand the nature of a new threat. Examples include harmful theories that COVID-19 is caused by 5G²³² and vaccines contain microchips controlled by Bill Gates²³³, and fake cures and health advice like injecting yourself with bleach.

People have to decipher mass amounts of information and make sense of the world through new information channels. “Viral disinformation and conspiracy theories pollute our information environment. They shape the way a growing number of Canadians make sense of the world, which in turn influences their social, economic, and political decisions²³⁴.” Sense-making drives what people think they know and how they make decisions. Misinformation bears the risks of backlash that could slow down or speed up the adoption of biodigital innovations. How we make sense of emerging biodigital innovations will affect the way the biodigital era unfolds.

A wider quest for national self-sufficiency

The early weeks of the pandemic demonstrated how commercial contracts can break down in a global emergency, as national governments intervened²³⁵ to prevent exports of personal protection equipment (PPE), medical supplies, and grains²³⁶. The pandemic also affected many supply chains, including semiconductors and meat²³⁷. As a result, governments may increase domestic capacity to manufacture essential supplies in a range of essential sectors. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Singapore has advanced²³⁸ its 2019 goal²³⁹ to produce 30% of its own food by 2030 using cellular agriculture and vertical farming. In 2021, Canada proposed a $2.2-billion investment²⁴⁰ in the biomanufacturing and life sciences sector, to strengthen vaccine production capabilities and healthcare innovations. We are seeing a similar focus on healthcare innovation and bioproduction around the world, France²⁴¹ being one of many countries investing heavily in this rapidly growing field.

Public involvement in the pharmaceutical industry

Countries that invested in COVID-19 vaccine development and manufacturing infrastructure enjoyed earlier access²⁴² to vaccines than those that took a more transactional approach to procurement—and disparities in early access quickly led to threats of export bans. Some countries may explore strategic bioinfrastructure and biomanufacturing capacity to better prepare for future biothreat emergencies and national security.

This could call into question the accepted dominant role of private enterprise in pharmaceutical development and manufacturing, as reflected in recent encouragement of public participation²⁴³ in biomanufacturing and pharmaceutical production.

Governments may especially value the domestic capability to pivot quickly and manufacture any new vaccine, treatment, or diagnostic test in the face of a new threat.

International vaccine distribution and contracts to secure supplies brought to light the inequality²⁴⁴ in access to prevention and treatments. The nature of global biothreats may require new strategies to allow more equal distribution of treatments.

A shifting balance between privacy, right to health, biosecurity, and biodefence

Testing and isolation emerged as key strategies early on for countries that were able to keep the pandemic under control. Some countries, such as South Korea²⁴⁵, did so especially effectively and compromised individual privacy²⁴⁶ to an extent currently unacceptable in Western culture—though this might change given a sufficiently serious threat. While still rife with ethical concerns, there is a growing sense that acceptance²⁴⁷ of biosurveillance tools is increasing, as we deal with a global pandemic. Interestingly, some islands and remote areas, such as New Zealand²⁴⁸ and Prince Edward Island²⁴⁹, administered stringent protocols controlling entry and responding to threats early, and have been praised and recognized for effective pandemic mitigation.

Many governments and scientists may want to improve²⁵⁰ their capacity to predict and detect²⁵¹ the next pandemic virus despite uncertainties²⁵². Diagnostic technologies that require personal biodata are developing quickly. Researchers are working on portable diagnostic devices using gene editing to detect any pathogen, processing hundreds of tests within 15 minutes; and sensors injected under the skin²⁵³ to detect an infection that may be contagious but not yet symptomatic. COVID-19 vaccine passports²⁵⁴ could herald a world in which many activities are accessible only with willingness to share one’s current state of health. The access and availability of healthcare services have been strained by the pandemic, leading jurisdictions to consider difficult measures such as vaccine mandates²⁵⁵ and health contributions²⁵⁶, or refusing healthcare services²⁵⁷ for the unvaccinated. There may be debate on whether healthcare is a right or a privilege. Some jurisdictions²⁵⁸ have deployed wastewater surveillance systems²⁵⁹ to better understand how COVID-19 spreads in a community.

Systemic shifts in science & technology during the COVID-19 pandemic

COVID-19 brought dramatic changes to some aspects of how science itself is conducted. Whether these changes become entrenched or fade away with the threat of the pandemic remains unknown.

• Clinical trial and approval processes for new mRNA vaccines were accelerated²⁶⁰ to an unprecedented degree.
• Synthetic biology companies and biofoundries have demonstrated their ability to rapidly switch their production capacity to raw materials²⁶¹ for new tests and vaccines.
• Scientists around the world shared data²⁶² on the sequencing of the COVID-19 genome and new variants.
• Academic journals prioritized²⁶³ speed of publication over thoroughness of the peer review process.
• Platforms such as Crowdfight²⁶⁴ emerged, enabling scientists to exchange ideas and enlist volunteer help.
• People volunteered their data to enable real-time science, such as through the UK’s Zoe symptom-tracking app²⁶⁵.

Conclusion

We are at the cusp of the biodigital convergence era. We use technology in biology today, but biology in itself is also a form of technology—it is programmable, codable, and alterable. The future of biology as technology could include programmable digital components. Digital technologies and biological systems are combining and merging in ways that could be profoundly disruptive to our assumptions about society, the economy, and our bodies.

Five sectors are set to transform with the onset of the biodigital convergence: food, health, the environment, security, and manufacturing.

Beyond the transformation we might see in those sectors, exploring the impact of the biodigital convergence on specific sectors may reveal more systemic opportunities, challenges, and dilemmas society will face.

Biodigital convergence opens up new perspectives on how biological entities affect economies; how the natural world interconnects with sectors; how technology advances and enables new biological innovations; what makes for an ideal location for human settlement; what are our ethical responsibilities to the natural world; and other challenges and opportunities that may arise in our evolution as a species.

Biodigital convergence also imposes new challenges and dilemmas: how should we coordinate international regulation approaches, to avoid countries embarking on experiments with potential consequences that could cascade across borders? What might be the economic implications on different industries, and how might it affect the competitiveness of countries? What implications might new human augmentation possibilities have on equity and discrimination? To what extent should we prioritize preserving traditional ways of life? We may be approaching a new era in which governance and regulatory frameworks include and target biodigital innovations.

Thinking through a transition, broadly evaluating possible risks, and harnessing opportunities could enable a better future for Canada and the world.

Acknowledgements

Policy Horizons is spearheading an area of foresight called the biodigital convergence. This report examines five sectors where possible disruptions may occur and explores how these systems may change as a result of the biodigital convergence. As this new domain emerges, we will continue to examine plausible future scenarios for biodigital convergence.

Biodigital Convergence project team

Katherine Antal, Senior Foresight Analyst
Marcus Ballinger, Manager
Steffen Christensen, Senior Foresight Analyst
Pierre-Olivier DesMarchais, Senior Foresight Analyst
Avalyne Diotte, Foresight Analyst
Evan Larmand, Foresight Analyst
Kristel Van der Elst, Director General

Communications

Maryam Alam, Communications Advisor
Laura Gauvreau, Manager
Géraldine Green, Translator
Alain Piquette, Graphic Designer
Nadia Zwierzchowska, Editor
Margareta Drzeniek, Writer (external)
Andrew Wright, Writer (external)

We would like to thank our colleagues Imran Arshad, Fannie Bigras Lafrance, Alexis Conrad, Louis-Philippe Gascon, Tammy Lemieux, Nelly Leonidis, Pascale Louis, and Khadyjatou Toukourou for their support on this project.

We would like to thank all the organizations and individuals that contributed to our thinking in the development of this report.

We look forward to collaborating with partners and stakeholders on the study of biodigital convergence.

Endnotes

1            Policy Horizons Canada. “Exploring Biodigital Convergence.” (2020). /en/2020/02/11/exploring-biodigital-convergence/

2            Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “The future of food and agriculture: Alternative pathways to 2050.” UN (2018). https://www.fao.org/3/CA1553EN/ca1553en.pdf

3            Susan Reidy. “FAO forecasts buoyant global food trade despite challenges.” World grain (2021) https://www.world-grain.com/articles/15420-fao-forecasts-buoyant-global-food-trade-despite-challenges  

4            Clint Rainey. “Meet Plant-Ag, the $9 billion startup that will let you trace your food from field to plate.” Fast Company (2021) https://www.fastcompany.com/90614017/plant-ag-9-billion-startup-food-traceability-field-to-plate-transparency-karim-giscombe  

5            “Burden of Foodborne Illness: Findings”. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accessed January 30, 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates.html  

6            Lana Bandoim. “World’s First 3D Bioprinted And Cultivated Ribeye Steak Is Revealed.” Forbes (2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanabandoim/2021/02/12/worlds-first-3d-bioprinted-and-cultivated-ribeye-steak-is-revealed/  

7            Niall Firth. “Your first lab-grown burger is coming soon – and it’ll be blended.” MIT Technology Review (2020), https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/12/18/1013241/first-lab-cultured-cultivated-meat-blended-plants/

8            Liam Pritchett. “The World’s First Lab-Grown Meat Restaurant Opens in Israel.” Livekindly (2020), https://www.livekindly.co/first-lab-grown-meat-restaurant/#:~:text=In%20a%20world%2Dfirst%2C%20Israel,from%20cells%20in%20a%20bioreactor  

9            Anna Starostinetskaya. “Qatar is poised to become the second country in the world to allow sale of lab-grown meat.” VegNews (2021), https://vegnews.com/2021/9/qatar-lab-grown-meat-sale  

10         Courtney Linder. “KFC is 3D-Printing Chicken Nuggets. Would You Eat Them?” Popular Mechanics (2020), https://www.popularmechanics.com/home/food-drink/a33380821/kfc-3d-bio-printed-chicken-nuggets/

11         Derek Beres. “Beyond Meat: Are you ready for lab-grown salmon?” Big Think (2020), https://bigthink.com/the-present/lab-grown-fish/

12         Li Allen. “ Lab-Grown Tune: Freaky Or Revolutionary? Either Way, It’s Here.” Forbes (2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/allenelizabeth/2020/04/10/lab-grown-tuna-freaky-or-revolutionary-either-way-its-here/

13         Simon Willis. “Can a country with no livestock become a meat producer? Singapore is going to try.” Fortune (2021), https://fortune.com/2021/05/29/singapore-fake-meat-plant-based-protein-cultured-meat-eat-just-food-security/

14         Larissa Zimberoff. “Forget Synthetic Meat, Lab Grown Dairy Is Here.” Bloomberg (2019), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-11/forget-cultured-meats-lab-grown-dairy-is-attracting-investors

15         Shelby Vittek. “We Won’t Be the Only Ones Eating Lab-Grown Meat – Our Pets Will Too.” Smithsonian (2021), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/we-wont-be-only-ones-eating-lab-grown-meat-our-pets-will-too-180977559/

16         Josh Peters, “Inside BIOMILQ: A Cell Ag Company Growing Breastmilk From Isolated Human Mammary Cells.” New Harvest (2021), https://new-harvest.org/biomilq-announces-cultured-breastmilk/

17         Joe Fassler. “Lab-grown meat is supposed to be inevitable. The science tells a different story.” The Counter (2021), https://thecounter.org/lab-grown-cultivated-meat-cost-at-scale/

18         Aryn Baker. “China’s New 5-Year Plan is a Blueprint for the Future of Meat.” Time (2022), https://time.com/6143109/china-future-of-cultivated-meat/; Sue Surkes. “China makes massive investment in Israeli lab meat technology.” The Times of Israel (2017), https://www.timesofisrael.com/china-makes-massive-investment-in-israeli-lab-meat-technology/

19         Vanessa Bates Ramirez. “New Cultured Meat Factory Will Churn Out 5,000 Bioreactor Burgers a Day.” Singularity Hub (2021), https://singularityhub.com/2021/07/02/a-cultured-meat-factory-in-israel-will-churn-out-5000-bioreactor-burgers-a-day/

20         Pritesh Vyas and al. “Nutrigenomics: Advances, Opportunities and Challenges in Understanding the Nutrient-Gene Interactions.” Current Nutrition & Food Science, 2017, 13, 1-12, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322695594_Nutrigenomics_Advances_Opportunities_and_Challenges_in_Understanding_the_Nutrient-Gene_Interactions

21         Kristin Kirkpatrick. “Do DNA-based diets work?” Today (2020), https://www.today.com/health/do-personalized-diets-work-t183387

22         Gunseli Yalcinkaya. “Sushi Singularity makes a bespoke dinner based on your bodily fluids.” Deezen (2019), https://www.dezeen.com/2019/04/02/sushi-singularity-3d-printed-sushi-customised/

23         Danielle Masterson. “Nestlé Health Science acquires personalized medicine platform.” Nutraingredients (2020), https://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Article/2020/01/08/Nestle-Health-Science-acquires-personalized-medicine-platform#

24         Futurism. “Now You Can Create Customized Vitamins Based on Your Own DNA.” (2020), https://futurism.com/custom-dna-vitamin-rootine

25         Katie Jennings. “How Human Genome Sequencing Went From $1 Billion A Pop To Under $1,000.” Forbes (2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2020/10/28/how-human-genome-sequencing-went-from-1-billion-a-pop-to-under-1000/

26         Kristin Houser. “New CRISPR tech could help us create superior crops of the future.” Free Think (2021), https://www.freethink.com/technology/new-crispr-technology

27         BBC, “Google reveals Mineral crop-inspecting robots.” (2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54538849#:~:text=Google’s%20parent%20company%2C%20Alphabet%2C%20has,over%20plants%20without%20disturbing%20them

28         Sergio Cubero and al. “RobHortic: A Field Robot to Detect Pests and Diseases in Horticultural Crops by Proximal Sensing.” Agriculture 10 (7) 276, 2020, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/10/7/276/htm

29         Victor Tangermann. “Watch a robot dog herd sheep on a New Zealand farm.” Futurism (2020), https://futurism.com/the-byte/robot-dog-herd-sheep-new-zealand

30         C. Williams. “Farm to Data Table: John Deere and Data in Precision Agriculture.” Digital Initiative (2019), https://digital.hbs.edu/platform-digit/submission/farm-to-data-table-john-deere-and-data-in-precision-agriculture/; John Deere. “Precision AG – The Digital Ecosystem Explained.” YouTube (2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npLSJh6X63g

31         Marla Keene. “How Technology is Changing Traceability and Safety.” Food Industry Executive (2021), https://foodindustryexecutive.com/2021/01/how-technology-is-changing-traceability-and-safety/

32         Peter Grad. “AI-controlled vertical farms promise revolution in food production.” TechXplore (2020), https://techxplore.com/news/2020-12-ai-controlled-vertical-farms-revolution-food.html

33         Agency for Science, Technology and Research. “From Lab to Table: Towards Singapore’s 30 by 30 Food Security Goal.” (2020), https://www.a-star.edu.sg/News/a-star-news/news/features/from-lab-to-table-towards-singapore-s-30-by-30-food-security-goal

34         Clarisa Diaz. “Three ways Singapore is designing urban farms to create food security.” Quartz (2021), https://qz.com/1985399/3-ways-singapore-is-creating-food-security-with-urban-farms/

35         Jon Cohen. “To feed its 1.4 billion, China bets big on genome editing of crops.” Science (2019), https://www.science.org/content/article/feed-its-14-billion-china-bets-big-genome-editing-crops

36         Science Daily. “Hotter, drier, CRISPR: editing for climate change.” (2021), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210301112331.htm

37         Agnieszka de Sousa.“Nestle Eyes Lab-Grown Meat Market to Tap Future Growth.” Bloomberg (2021), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-12/nestle-eyes-lab-grown-meat-market-to-tap-future-growth; Anna Starostinetskaya. “Nestlé is First Major Food Company to get Behind Lab-Grown Meat. Is That a Good Thing?” VegNews (2021), https://vegnews.com/2021/7/nestle-lab-grown-meat

38         Peter Grad. “AI-controlled vertical farms promise revolution in food production.“ TechXplore (2020), https://techxplore.com/news/2020-12-ai-controlled-vertical-farms-revolution-food.html

39         Rethink X, “Rethinking Food and Agriculture.” https://www.rethinkx.com/food-and-agriculture

40         Carmen M. Reinhart and Rob Subbaraman. “How can we prevent a COVID-19 food crisis?” World Economic Forum (2020), https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/05/preventing-a-covid-19-food-crisis/

41         Hannah Ritchie. “Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture.” Our World in Data (2019), https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture

42         Phil Lempert. “Food Trends Forecast 2021: Being Healthy In A Post COVID-19 World.” Forbes (2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/phillempert/2020/10/19/food-trends-2021-staying-healthy-in-a-post-covid-19-world/

43         Aaron M. Shew and al., “CRISPR versus GMOs: Public acceptance and valuation.” 19 Global Food Security 71 (2018), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912418300877

44         Tekla S. Perry. “Where Are the AI Jobs? Look to a Farm or a Forest.” IEEE Spectrum (2021), https://spectrum.ieee.org/ai-jobs-farm-forest

45         Flora Southey. “Firmenich creates world’s first flavour by artificial intelligence.” Food Navigator (2020), https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2020/10/05/Firmenich-creates-world-s-first-flavour-by-artificial-intelligence#:~:text=In%20an%20industry%20first%2C%20the,in%20plant%2Dbased%20meat%20alternatives

46         Annabel Slater. “AI and The Future of Flavour.” Food unfolded (2021), https://www.foodunfolded.com/article/ai-and-the-future-of-flavour; Patrick Kulp. “Sony’s New Recipe AI Aims to Find Cutting-Edge Flavor Combinations.” ADWEEK (2021), https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/sonys-new-recipe-ai-aims-to-find-cutting-edge-flavor-combinations/

47         Mikael Davidsson. “Using machine learning to generate recipes that actually work.” Towards data science (2021), https://towardsdatascience.com/using-machine-learning-to-generate-recipes-that-actually-works-b2331c85ab72

48         Wikipedia. “Appellation”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation

49         Shanna H. Swan. “Reproductive Problems in Both Men and Women Are Rising at an Alarming Rate.” Scientific American (2021), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/reproductive-problems-in-both-men-and-women-are-rising-at-an-alarming-rate/

50         Health Canada. “A Prescription for Canada: Achieving Pharmacare for All.” (2019) https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/public-engagement/external-advisory-bodies/implementation-national-pharmacare/final-report.html#2.5

51         WHO. “Health workforce.” https://www.who.int/health-topics/health-workforce#tab=tab_1

52         Science Table COVID-19 Advisory for Ontario. “Burnout in Hospital-based Healthcare Workers during COVID-19.” (2021), https://covid19-sciencetable.ca/sciencebrief/burnout-in-hospital-based-healthcare-workers-during-covid-19/

53         Canadian Institute for Health Information. “Canadian Organ Replacement Register frequently asked questions.” https://www.cihi.ca/en/faq/canadian-organ-replacement-register-frequently-asked-questions#:~:text=Transplant%20waiting%20lists&text=As%20of%20December%2031%2C%202019,for%20an%20islet%20cell%20transplant

54         Lucas Carolo. “3D Printed Organs: The Most Promising Projects in 2021.” ALL3DP (2021), https://all3dp.com/2/most-promising-3d-printed-organs-for-transplant/

55         Emily Mullin. “The First Pig-to-Human Organ Transplants Could Happen This Year.” Future Human (2021), https://futurehuman.medium.com/the-first-pig-to-human-organ-transplants-could-happen-this-year-a538ad0c5536

56         Albertina Torsoli. “European Regulators Approve Sales of First Artificial Heart.” Bloomberg (2020), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-24/france-s-carmat-soars-as-artificial-heart-hopes-become-reality

57         Science Daily. “Flexible and biodegradable electronic blood vessels.” (2020), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/10/201001113634.htm

58         SciTechDaily. “New Electronic Skin Can React to Pain Like Human Skin – For Better Prosthetics and Smarter Robots.” (2020), https://scitechdaily.com/new-electronic-skin-can-react-to-pain-like-human-skin-for-better-prosthetics-and-smarter-robots/

59         Chris Young. “Wirelessly Rechargeable Soft Brain Implant Could Cure Brain diseases.” Interesting Engineering (2021), https://interestingengineering.com/wireless-rechargeable-soft-brain-implant-could-cure-brain-diseases

60         Isobel Asher Hamilton. “Elon Musk’s AI brain chip company Neuralink is doing its first live tech demo on Friday. Here’s what we know so far about the wild science behind it.” Insider (2020), https://www.businessinsider.com/we-spoke-to-2-neuroscientists-about-how-exciting-elon-musks-neuralink-really-is-2019-9

61         Daniel Oberhaus. “A Brain Implant Restored This Man’S Motion and Sense of Touch.” Wired (2020), https://www.wired.com/story/a-brain-implant-restored-this-mans-motion-and-sense-of-touch/

62         Clive Cookson. “Electrical brain implants: a new way to treat depression?” Financial Times (2021), https://www.ft.com/content/b255322b-eb91-4898-aa79-e29d51794b73

63         Michael S. Beauchamp and al. “Dynamic Stimulation of Visual COrtex Produces Form Vision in Sighted and Blind Humans.” 181 Cell 4, 774, 2020, https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)30496-7

64         Mazhar Adli. “The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond.” Nature (2018), https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04252-2

65         Steven Levy. “Could CRISPR be Humanity’s Next Virus Killer?” Wired (2020), https://www.wired.com/story/could-crispr-be-the-next-virus-killer/

66         Medical Xpress. “Revolutionary CRISPR-based genome editing system treatment destroys cancer cells.” (2020), https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-11-revolutionary-crispr-based-genome-treatment-cancer.amp

67         Samira Kiani. “CRISPR can help combat the troubling immune response against gene therapy.” The Conversation (2020), https://theconversation.com/crispr-can-help-combat-the-troubling-immune-response-against-gene-therapy-145367

68         John Cumbers. “Could CRISPR Eradicate Acne?” Forbes (2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/johncumbers/2021/01/11/could-crispr-eradicate-acne/

69         Heidi Ledford. “CRISPR treatment inserted directly.” Nature (2020), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00655-8

70         Eva Frederick. “An on-off switch for gene editing.” Whitehead Institute (2021), https://wi.mit.edu/news/switch-gene-editing

71         Cary Funk and al. “Biotechnology Research Viewed With Caution Globally, but Most Support Gene Editing for Babies To Treat Disease.” Pew Research Center (2020), https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/12/10/biotechnology-research-viewed-with-caution-globally-but-most-support-gene-editing-for-babies-to-treat-disease/  

72         Emily Mullin. “Men Are Twice as Likely to Support Genetically Engineered Babies Than Women.” Future Human (2020), https://futurehuman.medium.com/men-are-twice-as-likely-to-support-genetically-engineered-babies-than-women-7a7f3507ef5

73         WHO. “Emerging technologies.” https://www.who.int/teams/health-ethics-governance/emerging-technologies/expert-advisory-committee-on-developing-global-standards-for-governance-and-oversight-of-human-genome-editing

74         Amy Guttman. “How Covid Has Sped Up The Future In Healthcare.” Forbes (2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyguttman/2021/03/24/how-covid-has-sped-up-the-future-in-healthcare/

75         Edd Gent. “This New Smartphone-based DNA Test Could Help Track Disease in Real Time.” SingularityHub (2020), https://singularityhub.com/2020/04/27/this-new-smartphone-based-dna-test-could-help-track-disease-in-real-time/

76         Abdullahi Umar Ibrahim and al. “Futuristic CRISPR-based biosensing in the cloud and internet of things era: an overview.” Multimedia Tools and Applications (2020), https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11042-020-09010-5

77         Futurism. “These Advanced Probiotics Are Designed to Promote GI Health.” (2020), https://futurism.com/seed-advanced-probiotics

78         James Kingsland. “Gut bacteria can help rebuild the immune system.” MedicalNewsToday (2020), https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/gut-bacteria-can-help-rebuild-the-immune-system

79         SciTechDaily. “Breakthrough Understanding of Limb and Organ Regeneration – Closer to the Development of Regenerative Medicine Therapies.” (2022), https://scitechdaily.com/breakthrough-understanding-of-limb-and-organ-regeneration-closer-to-the-development-of-regenerative-medicine-therapies/

80         Technology Networks. “New Type of Kidney Organoid Developed.” (2021), https://www.technologynetworks.com/tn/news/new-type-of-kidney-organoid-developed-349823

81         Eman Ahmed and Mahsa Shabani. “DNA Data Marketplace: An Analysis of the Ethical Concerns Regarding the Participation of the Individuals.” 10 Front Genet 1107, 2019, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6844291/

82         Helen Albert. “How Blockchain Companies Are Helping Us Protect Our Genomic Data.” Labiotech (2021), https://www.labiotech.eu/in-depth/blockchain-control-genomic-data/

83         Camilo La Cruz. “Who owns your DNA? You should, according to this biodata bill of rights.” Fast Company (2020), https://www.fastcompany.com/90460304/who-owns-your-dna-you-should-according-to-this-biodata-bill-of-rights

84         Andrew Joseph. “Sequencing whole genomes helps diagnose far more rare diseases, study shows.” Stat (2021), https://www.statnews.com/2021/11/10/sequencing-whole-genomes-helps-diagnose-more-rare-diseases/

85         Gareth Macdonald. “COVID-19 driven CDMO investments to benefit wider sector” BioProcess International (2022), https://bioprocessintl.com/bioprocess-insider/global-markets/covid-19-driven-cdmo-investments-to-benefit-wider-sector/

86         Troy Segal. “Biotech vs. Pharmaceuticals: What’s the Difference?” Investopedia (2021), https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/033115/what-difference-between-biotechnology-company-and-pharmaceutical-company.asp

87         Kristen V Brown. “All Those 23andMe Spit Tests Were Part of a Bigger Plan.” Bloomberg Businessweek (2021), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-04/23andme-to-use-dna-tests-to-make-cancer-drugs

88         Françoise Baylis and al. “Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape.” The CRISPR Journal. Oct 2020. 365-377. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/crispr.2020.0082

89         Hashem Al-Ghali. “CRISPR gene-editing at home.” Youtube (2019), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OTQtlHRPWc

90         Wikipedia. “Eugenics”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

91         Elizabeth Fernandez. “Yes, People Can Edit The Genome In Their Garage. Can They Be Regulated?” Forbes (2019), https://www.forbes.com/sites/fernandezelizabeth/2019/09/19/yes-people-can-edit-the-genome-in-their-garage-can-they-be-regulated/; Izabelle Kaminska. “Bioterror: the dangers of garage scientists manipulating DNA.” Financial Times (2021), https://www.ft.com/content/9ac7f1c0-1468-4dc7-88dd-1370ead42371

92         Antonio Regalado. “The DIY designer baby project funded with Bitcoin.” MIT Technology Review (2019), https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/02/01/239624/the-transhumanist-diy-designer-baby-funded-with-bitcoin/

93         Science Daily, “Study encourages cautious approach to CRISPR therapeutics.” (2021), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/11/211111080332.htm

94         Martin Tisne. “Collective data rights can stop big tech from obliterating privacy.” MIT Technology Review (2021), https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/05/25/1025297/collective-data-rights-big-tech-privacy/

95         Sara Reardon. “Can lab-grown brains become conscious?” Nature (2020), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02986-y

96         Nora S. Vaage. “What Ethics for Bioart?” 1 NanoEthics 2016, https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/what-ethics-for-bioart/7781664

97         Think Automation, “The AI black box problem.” https://www.thinkautomation.com/bots-and-ai/the-ai-black-box-problem/; Ben Dickson. “The dangers of trusting black-box machine learning”, TechTalks (2020), https://bdtechtalks.com/2020/07/27/black-box-ai-models/

98         Tekla S. Perry. “Scientists Can Work From Home When the Lab is in the Cloud.” IEEE Spectrum (2020), https://spectrum.ieee.org/scientists-work-from-home-lab-cloud

99         Futurism. “Bionic Eye Patients Are Going Blind Again After Manufacturer Decides They’re Obsolete.” 2022, https://futurism.com/neoscope/bionic-eye-implants-expire; IEEE. “Their Bionic Eyes Are Now Obsolete And Unsupported.” 2022, https://spectrum.ieee.org/bionic-eye-obsolete

100       Nature. “License CRISPR patents for free to share gene editing globally.” 2021, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02420-x

101       Sylvain Aubry and al., “Bringing access and benefit sharing into the digital age.” 4:1 Plants, People, Planet (2021), https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp3.10186

102       Convention on Biological Diversity. “Digital Sequence Information on Genetic Resources.” 2021, https://www.cbd.int/dsi-gr/

103       Adam B. Smith. “2010-2019: A Landmark decade of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters.” Climate.gov (2020), https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2010-2019-landmark-decade-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate

104       World Weather Attribution. “Western North American extreme heat virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.” 2021, https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/western-north-american-extreme-heat-virtually-impossible-without-human-caused-climate-change/

105       Tim Human. “Investors target 1,320 companies over disclosure of environmental risks.” Corporate Secretary (2021), https://www.corporatesecretary.com/articles/esg/32619/investors-target-1320-companies-over-disclosure-environmental-risks

106       Brittany Enzmann. “Gene Drives Explained: How to Solve Problems with CRISPR.” Synthego, https://www.synthego.com/blog/gene-drive-crispr

107       Amy Woodyatt. “Scientists create glow-in-the-dark plants.” CNN (2020), https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/27/world/glowing-plants-intl-scli-scn/index.html

108       Science Daily. “Researchers develop plant anobionic sensor to monitor arsenic levels in soil.“2020, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/12/201202114513.htm

109       MaryAnn Labant. “CRISPR Targets Climate Change.” Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (2020), https://www.genengnews.com/insights/crispr-targets-climate-change/

110       Revive & Restore, Wooly Mammoth Revival, https://reviverestore.org/projects/woolly-mammoth/

111       Brittany Enzmann. “Gene Drives Explained: How to Solve Problems with CRISPR.” Synthego https://www.synthego.com/blog/gene-drive-crispr

112       Genetic Biocontrol. “Genetic Biocontrol of Invasive Rodents.” https://www.geneticbiocontrol.org/; John L. Teem and al. “Genetic Biocontrol for Invasive Species. “Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology (2020), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2020.00452/full

113       Marte Rusten. “Restoring ecosystems through synthetic biology.” DNV, https://www.dnv.com/to2030/technology/restoring-ecosystems-through-synthetic-biology.html

114       Sandee LaMotte. “750 million genetically engineered mosquitoes approved for release in Florida Keys.” CTV News (2020), https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/750-million-genetically-engineered-mosquitoes-approved-for-release-in-florida-keys-1.5071851

115       Nicholas Kachel. “How synthetic jellyfish could be used to clean up toxic marine spills.” CSIROscope (2019), https://blog.csiro.au/how-synthetic-jellyfish-could-be-used-to-clean-up-toxic-marine-spills/

116       Anne Trafton. “Inspired by Kombucha tea, engineers create living materials.” MIT News (2021), https://news.mit.edu/2021/living-materials-kombucha-0111#:~:text=To%20demonstrate%20the%20potential%20of,found%20as%20an%20environmental%20pollutant.&text=You%20just%20need%20sugar%2C%20you,of%20Syn%2DSCOBY%20mother.%E2%80%9D

117       John Cumbers. “Bill Gates – Backed Ginkgo Bioworks Has A New $40 Million Spinout Using Synthetic Biology To Clean Wastewater.” Forbes (2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/johncumbers/2020/10/28/bill-gates-backed-ginkgo-bioworks-has-a-new-40-million-spin-out-using-synthetic-biology-to-clean-wastewater/

118       Mirage. “Lab 3D-prints microbes to enhance biomaterials.” Mirage News (2021), https://www.miragenews.com/lab-3d-prints-microbes-to-enhance-509388/

119       University of Texas at Austin. “Genetic potential of oil-eating bacteria from the BP oil spill decoded.” Science Daily (2016), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/05/160509115556.htm

120       Adam Piore. “Carbon-Sucking Bionic Weeds Are New Front in Climate Change War.” Bloomberg Businessweek (2020), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-25/climate-change-biologists-develop-carbon-sucking-bionic-plants

121       Kara Carlson. “Startup Hypergiant’s new weapon against climate change: Algae-growing cubes.” The Dallas Morning News (2019), https://www.dallasnews.com/business/entrepreneurs/2019/09/18/startup-hypergiant-s-new-weapon-against-climate-change-algae-growing-cubes/

122       Marthe de Ferrer. “Scientists have taught spinach to send emails and it could warn us about climate change.” EuroNews (2021), https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/02/01/scientists-have-taught-spinach-to-send-emails-and-it-could-warn-us-about-climate-change

123       Layal Liverpool. “CRISPR gene editing used to store data in DNA inside living cells.” New Scientist (2021), https://www.newscientist.com/article/2264383-crispr-gene-editing-used-to-store-data-in-dna-inside-living-cells/

124       Microsoft. “DNA Storage”, accessed April 14th, 2022, https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/dna-storage/

125       ETH Zurich. “Storing data in everyday objects.” Science Daily (2019), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/12/191209110529.htm

126       Emily Waltz. “Portable DNA Sequencer MinION Helps Build the Internet of Living Things.” IEEE Spectrum (2016), https://spectrum.ieee.org/portable-dna-sequencer-minion-help-build-the-internet-of-living-things

127       OECD, “Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic and Business Case for Action.” OECD (2019), https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity/G7-report-Biodiversity-Finance-and-the-Economic-and-Business-Case-for-Action.pdf

128       Helen Santoro. “These tiny microbes are munching away at plastic waste in the ocean.” Science (2019), https://www.science.org/content/article/these-tiny-microbes-are-munching-away-plastic-waste-ocean

129       Maeve Campbell. “Mysterious bacteria found in the Arctic can break down oil and diesel.” EuroNews (2021), https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/08/16/mysterious-bacteria-found-in-the-arctic-can-break-down-oil-and-diesel

130       London Institute of Medical Sciences. “Sustainable light achieved in living plants.” Phys.org (2020), https://phys.org/news/2020-04-sustainable.html

131       Rutgers University. “Climate change may cut soil’s ability to absorb water.” Science Daily (2019), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190911151204.htm

132       Daisy Dunne. “Geoengineering carries large risks for the natural world, studies show.” Carbon Brief (2018), https://www.carbonbrief.org/geoengineering-carries-large-risks-for-natural-world-studies-show

133       Chloe V. Robinson and Mehrdad Hajibabaei. “Healthy rivers: Communities use DNA tool to keep tabs on freshwater quality.” The Conservation (2021), https://theconversation.com/healthy-rivers-communities-use-dna-tool-to-keep-tabs-on-freshwater-quality-152477

134       Jennifer Garbmeier. “New $15 million NSF grant launches Ohio State Imageomics Institute.” Ohio state News (2021), https://news.osu.edu/new-15-million-nsf-grant-launches-ohio-state-imageomics-institute/

135       eBird, accessed April 14th, 2022, https://ebird.org/home

136       iNaturalist, accessed April 14th, 2022, https://www.inaturalist.org/

137       Hélène Morion and Anna Papadopoulou. “How we can detect pretty much anything.” TEDEd (2021), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdwU_ZPk1cY

138       Jason Rhys Parry. “Decision Trees.” Real Life Mag (2020), https://reallifemag.com/decision-trees/

139       Canadian Standards Association. “Environmental DNA Standardization Needs for Fish and Wildlife Population Assessments and Monitoring.” 2019, https://www.csagroup.org/resources/wp-content/uploads/CSA-Group-Research-Environmental-DNA.pdf

140       Genome Canada, “BIOSCAN – Canada”, accessed April 14th, 2022, https://www.genomecanada.ca/en/bioscan-canada

141       Rene Ebersole. “How eDNA is revolutionizing the tracking of elusive species. It may soon be used to fight wildfire trafficking.” Washington Post (2021), https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/edna-finding-endangered-species/2021/04/30/43734ef8-872e-11eb-8a8b-5cf82c3dffe4_story.html

142       Christina Agapakis. “What Happens when biology becomes technology.” Ted (2020), https://www.ted.com/talks/christina_agapakis_what_happens_when_biology_becomes_technology

143       Christina Agapakis. “Is DNA Hardware or Software?” Grow (2020), https://www.growbyginkgo.com/2020/06/29/is-dna-hardware-or-software/

144       Michael Levin. “The electrical blueprints that orchestrate life.” Ted (2020), https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_levin_the_electrical_blueprints_that_orchestrate_life  

145       Stephanie Hunter. “Could CRISPR be Used to Revive Extinct Species.” Azo Life Sciences (2020), https://www.azolifesciences.com/article/Could-CRISPR-be-Used-to-Revive-Extinct-Species.aspx

146       Jennifer Kahn. “The Gene Drive Dilemma: We Can Alter Entire Species, but Should We?” The New York Times (2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/magazine/gene-drive-mosquitoes.html

147       Seth L. Shipman and al. “CRISPR-Cas encoding of a digital movie into the genomes of a population of living bacteria.” Nature (2017), https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23017.epdf

148       Convention on Biological Diversity. “Digital Sequence Information On Genetic Resources” (2021), https://www.cbd.int/dsi-gr/

149       Sylvain Aubry. “The Future of Digital Sequence Information for Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.” Frontiers in Plant Science (2019), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01046/full

150       Lindsey Van Ness. “DNA Databases Are Boon to Police But Menace to Privacy, Critics Say.” PEW (2020), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/02/20/dna-databases-are-boon-to-police-but-menace-to-privacy-critics-say

151       Antonio Regalado. “China’s BGI says it can sequence a genome for just $100.” MIT Technology Review (2020), https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/02/26/905658/china-bgi-100-dollar-genome/

152       Thor Benson. “DNA Databases in the U.S. and China Are Tools of Racial Oppression.” IEEE Spectrum (2020), https://spectrum.ieee.org/dna-databases-in-china-and-the-us-are-tools-of-racial-oppression

153       James Leibold. “Genomic surveillance: inside China’s DNA dragnet.” ASPI (2020), https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/genomic-surveillance-inside-chinas-dna-dragnet/

154       Sui-Lee Wee and Paul Mozur. “China Uses DNA to Map Faces, With Help From the West.” The New York Times (2021), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/business/china-dna-uighurs-xinjiang.html

155       Pfizer. “How Finland’s Unique Genetic Heritage Is Being Used to Study the Links Between Genes and Diseases.” https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/how-finland%E2%80%99s-unique-genetic-heritage-being-used-study-links-between-genes-and

156       Brishette Mendoza and Amadou Diallo. “The Best DNA Testing Kit.” The New York Times (2021), https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-dna-test/

157       Eric Ravenscraft. “How to Protect Your DNA Data Before and After Taking an at-Home Test.” The New York Times (2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/smarter-living/how-to-protect-your-dna-data.html

158       Kashmir Hill and Heather Murphy. “Your DNA Profile is Private? A Florida Judge Said Otherwise.” The New York Times (2019), https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/business/dna-database-search-warrant.html

159       Zac Ntim. “14 years after a sexual assault in Tampa, a man has been charged with rape because he entered his own DNA into a genealogy database.” Insider (2021), https://www.insider.com/tampa-bay-police-use-genealogy-testing-database-solve-rape-case-2021-6

160       Andy Fell. “Genetic Hacking is a risk of online genealogy.” Futurity (2019), https://www.futurity.org/genetic-hacking-dna-tests-privacy-2191472-2/

161       Tomohiro Takano. “Open-Source DNA Database: What they are and How to Use Them.” Genome Link (2019), https://blog.genomelink.io/posts/open-source-dna-databases

162       Sharon Weinberger. “Inside the massive (and unregulated) world of surveillance tech.” Ted (2020), https://www.ted.com/talks/sharon_weinberger_inside_the_massive_and_unregulated_world_of_surveillance_tech

163       Antonio Regalado. “On Patrol with America’s Top Bioterror Cop.” MIT Technology Review (2016), https://www.technologyreview.com/2016/10/20/107397/on-patrol-with-americas-top-bioterror-cop/

164       Rachel Kraus. “Injecting this sensor under your skin could prevent future pandemics.” Mashable (2020), https://mashable.com/article/under-the-skin-sensor-flu-pandemic-coronavirus

165       Emily Waltz. “DARPA Seeks Pathogen Detectors That Use CRISPR to Run 1,000 Tests at Once.” IEEE Spectrum (2019), https://spectrum.ieee.org/darpa-wants-scifi-pathogen-detectors

166       Dylan Malyasov. “U.S. Army Discloses development of biosensors for future warfighter.” Defense Blog (2019), https://defence-blog.com/u-s-army-discloses-development-of-biosensors-for-future-warfighter/

167       Sarah Scoles. “How Do We Know If a Virus Is Bioengineered?” Future Human (2020), https://futurehuman.medium.com/how-do-we-know-if-a-virus-is-bioengineered-541ff6f8a48f

168       Vivek Wadhwa. “the Genetic Engineering Genie Is Out of the Bottle.” Foreign Policy (2020), https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/11/crispr-pandemic-gene-editing-virus/

169       Margaret Talbot. “The Rogue Experimenters.” The New Yorker (2020), https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/25/the-rogue-experimenters

170       Kostas Vavitsas. “Biosecurity Is Synthetic Biology’s Most Crucial Ally.” Labiotech (2020), https://www.labiotech.eu/in-depth/biosecurity-synthetic-biology/

171       Sigal Samuel. “Is it time to regulate biohacking? California thinks so.” Vox (2019), https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/13/20802059/california-crispr-biohacking-illegal-josiah-zayner

172       Asha M. George. “The National Security Implications of Cyberbiosecurity.” Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology (2019), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbicoe.2019.00051/full

173       Kai Kupferschmidt. “How Canadian researchers reconstituted an extinct poxvirus for $100.000 using mail-order DNA.” Science (2017), https://www.science.org/content/article/how-canadian-researchers-reconstituted-extinct-poxvirus-100000-using-mail-order-dna

174       Wiley. “Making puffer fish toxin in a flask.” Science Daily (2020), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/03/200306122458.htm

175       Alyssa J. Forrest. “The Growing Threat of Agroterrorism and Strategies for Agricultural Defense.” Liberty University (2020), https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2029&context=honors

176       Frédéric Suffert and Ivan Sache. “Plant pathogens as agroterrorist weapons: Assessment of the threat for European agriculture and forestry.” Food Security (2009), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226121097_Plant_pathogens_as_agroterrorist_weapons_Assessment_of_the_threat_for_European_agriculture_and_forestry

177       Elizabeth Culliford. “How political campaigns use your data.” Reuters (2020), https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ELECTION/DATA-VISUAL/yxmvjjgojvr/

178       Nicholas Thompson. “When Tech Knows You Better than You Know Yourself.” Wired (2018), https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-yuval-noah-harari-tristan-harris/

179       Matthew Shaer. “The False Promise of DNA Testing.” The Atlantic (2016), https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/

180       Tim Lau. “Predictive Policing Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice (2020), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/predictive-policing-explained

181       Carrie Arnold. “The controversial company using DNA to sketch the faces of criminals.” Nature (2020), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02545-5

182       Damon Simon. “How to Create a Biosecure Post-Pandemic House.” Property Onion (2020), https://propertyonion.com/education/how-to-create-a-biosecure-post-pandemic-house/

183       Varadaraj Velamoor and Emmanuel Persad. “Covid-19: Cultural perspectives.” 53 Asian J. Psychiatr (2020), https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7544596/

184       IEC. “New standardization Evaluation Group (SEG) on Bio-digital convergence.” Issue Q1 (2021), https://www.iec.ch/issue-q1-2021

185       Anita Sengupta. “Will Canadians Benefit from the Revolutionary Gene Editing Tool cRISPRCas9?” McGill Journal of Law and Health (2020), https://mjlh.mcgill.ca/2020/02/11/will-canadians-benefit-from-the-revolutionary-gene-editing-tool-crispr-cas9/

186       Rebecca Trager. “US biotechnology is key target for foreign cyberespionage.” Chemistry World (2018), https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/us-biotechnology-is-key-target-for-foreign-cyberespionage/3009326.article

187       Help Net Security, “Attacks on biotech and pharmaceutical industry escalate.” (2020), https://www.helpnetsecurity.com/2020/11/20/attacks-biotech-pharmaceutical-industry-escalate/

188       Richard Gray. “Why gene editing could create so many jobs.” BBC (2018), https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20181003-why-gene-therapy-will-create-so-many-jobs

189       Trushar R. Patel and Michael Hilary D’Souza. “Coronavirus is not a bioweapon – but bioterrorism is a real future threat.” The conversation (2020), https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-is-not-a-bioweapon-but-bioterrorism-is-a-real-future-threat-135984

190       Ludger Schuh. “Why Supply Chains are Getting More Complex – And Why This is not Necessarily a Problem.” All Things Supply Chain (2015), https://www.allthingssupplychain.com/supply-chains-getting-complex-not-necessarily-problem/

191       Deloitte. “2020 Manufacturing industry outlook.” (2020), https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/us/Documents/energy-resources/2020-manufacturing-industry-outlook.pdf

192       Policy Horizons Canada. “The Next Digital Economy.” (2019), /en/2019/06/20/the-next-digital-economy/

193       James Vincent. “Robotic lab assistant is 1,000 times faster at conducting research.” The Verge (2020), https://www.theverge.com/21317052/mobile-autonomous-robot-lab-assistant-research-speed

194       Tijana Radivojevic and al. “A machine learning Automated Recommendation Tool for synthetic biology.” Nature (2020), https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18008-4

195       Global Biofoundries Alliance. “The Bio-Engineering Cycle”, accessed April 14th, 2022, https://biofoundries.org/design-build-test-learn

196       Gledon Doçi and al. “DNA Scanner: a web application for comparing DNA synthesis feasibility, price and turnaround time across vendors.” 5:1 Synthetic Biology 2020, https://academic.oup.com/synbio/article/5/1/ysaa011/5892266

197       John Cumbers. “Keep Warm This Winter With A Sweater Made From Brewed Protein, The Breakthrough Sustainable Material Inspired By Spider Silk.” Forbes (2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/johncumbers/2020/11/26/keep-warm-this-winter-with-a-sweater-made-from-brewed-protein-the-breakthrough-sustainable-material-inspired-by-spider-silk/

198       Kubi Sertoglu. “Scientists 3D print Biodegradable Leather Products Made of Silk.“ 3D Printing Industry (2021), https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/scientists-3d-print-biodegradable-leather-products-made-of-silk-189706/

199       Justine Calma. “One day, your home could be made with mushrooms.” The Verge (2021), https://www.theverge.com/22257120/mushroom-bricks-mycelium-sustainable-building-materials

200       LABC, “Bioconcrete Heals itself. Could this be the future of construction?” (2019), https://www.labcwarranty.co.uk/blog/self-healing-concrete-is-bioconcrete-the-future/

201       Robert Willows. “Designer Bacteria Could Fuel the Future with Cheap Hydrogen.” Fuel Cells Works (2019), https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/designer-bacteria-could-fuel-the-future-with-cheap-hydrogen/

202       Northwestern University. “Aquatic robot inspired by sea creatures walks, rolls, transports cargo.” TechXplore (2020), https://techxplore.com/news/2020-12-aquatic-robot-sea-creatures-cargo.html

203       Todd Bates-Rutgers. “Shape-shifting hydrogel mimics octopus skin.” Futurity (2021), https://www.futurity.org/3d-printed-hydrogel-shape-changing-2496352-2/

204       Philip Ball. “Cells Form Into Xenobots on Their Own.” Quanta Magazine (2021), https://www.quantamagazine.org/cells-form-into-xenobots-on-their-own-20210331/

205       Mariana Labbate. “MU research puts green algae on the front line to replace fossil fuel.” Missourian (2020), https://www.columbiamissourian.com/innovations/agriculture/muresearch-puts-green-algae-on-the-front-line-to/article_feb45082-0f97-11ea-a959-ab9bd0d493dd.html

206       Dr. John J. Berge. “Growing A Bioeconomy: Flanders To Produce Fossil-Free Fuels, Chemicals, And Products.” Sustain Europe (2017), https://www.sustaineurope.com/growing-the-bioeconomy-in-flanders–12042017.html

207       Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. “Lygos Teams Up with U.S. DOE to Enhance Organic Acid Production.” (2021), https://www.genengnews.com/topics/bioprocessing/lygos-teams-up-with-us-doe-to-enhance-organic-acid-production/

208       Marcus Fairs. “Mycelium is part of the solution to carbon-negative buildings.” Deezen (2021), https://www.dezeen.com/2021/06/25/carbon-negative-buildings-mycelium-insulation-fire-proofing/

209       Sai Balasubramanian. “What Is Precision Health & Why Are Organizations Suddenly Investing Billions In It?” Forbes (2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/saibala/2021/06/30/what-is-precision-health–why-are-organizations-suddenly-investing-billions-in-it/

210       Jennifer Rankin. “Two miles of beer: Bruges pipe dream becomes a reality.” The Guardian (2016), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/bruges-pipe-dream-a-reality-beer-pipeline

211       Kerryn Higgs. “How the world embraced consumerism.” BBC (2021), https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210120-how-the-world-became-consumerist

212       United Nations. “Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production.” https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-consumption-production/

213       Ellen MacArthur Foundation. “What is a circular economy?” https://ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/topics/circular-economy-introduction/overview

214       Maria Saxton. “Mycelium Fungi as a Building Material.” Rise (2020), https://www.buildwithrise.com/stories/mycelium-fungi-as-a-building-material

215       Amy Borrett. “The great catalyst: How Covid-19 accelerated digital transformation.” Tech Monitor (2020), https://techmonitor.ai/boardroom/strategy/covid-19-digital-transformation

216       Natalie Sherman. “Zoom sees sales boom amid pandemic.” BBC (2020), https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52884782

217       United Nations Conference on Trade And Development. “COVID-19 has changed online shopping forever, survey shows” (2020), https://unctad.org/news/covid-19-has-changed-online-shopping-forever-survey-shows

218       Levi Sumagaysay. “The pandemic has more than doubled food-delivery apps’ business. Now what?” Market Watch (2020), https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-pandemic-has-more-than-doubled-americans-use-of-food-delivery-apps-but-that-doesnt-mean-the-companies-are-making-money-11606340169

219       Cara Murez. “Health care after COVID-19: The rise of telemedicine.” Medical Xpress (2021), https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-01-health-covid-telemedicine.html#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20that%20use,more%20than%204000%25%20in%20April

220       Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Contact Tracing for COVID-19.”, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/php/contact-tracing/contact-tracing-plan/contact-tracing.html

221       University of Utah Health,“mRNA vaccines slash risk of COVID-19 infection by 91 percent in fully vaccinated people, study finds.” Science Daily (2021), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/07/210706180911.htm

222       Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News. “Sequencing and COVID-19: From Genomic epidemiology to Host Response.” (2021), https://www.genengnews.com/sponsored/sequencing-and-covid-19-from-genomic-epidemiology-to-host-response/

223       Ainsley Hawthorn. “The story behind the blistering speed of COVID-19 vaccine development.” CBC (2021), https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/apocalypse-then-vaccine-speed-1.6008611

224       Eleni Smitham and Amanda Glassman. “The Next Pandemic Could Come Soon and Be Deadlier.” Center for Global Development (2021), https://www.cgdev.org/blog/the-next-pandemic-could-come-soon-and-be-deadlier

225       Holly Else. “How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing – in seven charts.” Nature (2020), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03564-y

226       Roderick Slavcev. “Researchers Develop COVID-19 Nasal Spray Vaccine.” Medical Expo, https://trends.medicalexpo.com/project-433310.html

227       Qatar Foundation. “Global genomic study could lead to new therapies for COVID patients.” Phys Org (2021), https://phys.org/news/2021-07-global-genomic-therapies-covid-patients.html

228       Yun Kit Yeoh and al. “Gut microbiota composition reflects disease severity and dysfunctional immune responses in patients with COVID-19.” 70 Gut 698, 2021, https://gut.bmj.com/content/70/4/698

229       Ronald N. Kostoff and al. “The under-reported role of toxic substance exposures in the COVID-19 pandemic.” Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2020, https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32805343

230       Josh Lowe. “Treat pandemic preparedness as a national security issue, says former UK PM Tony Blair.” Global Government Forum (2021), https://www.globalgovernmentforum.com/pandemic-preparedness-national-security-issue-former-uk-pm-tony-blair/

231       Sander van der Linden and al. “Inoculating Against Fake News About COVID-19.” Frontiers in Psychology (2020), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790/full

232       David Robert Grimes. “How to take on Covid conspiracy theories.” Financial Times (2021), https://www.ft.com/content/6660cb80-8c11-476a-b107-e0193fa975f9

233       European External Action service, “My friend Thinks Bill Gates Will Microchip Humanity. Now What?” 2021, https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquartershomepage/93863/%E2%80%9Cmy-friend-thinks-bill-gates-will-microchiphumanity%E2%80%9D-now-what_en

234       Policy Horizons Canada. “The Future of Sense-making.” (2021), /en/2021/05/29/the-future-of-sense-making/

235       Harry G. Broadman. “Protectionism Makes The Coronavirus Even More Lethal.” Forbes (2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybroadman/2020/03/31/protectionism-makes-the-coronavirus-even-more-lethal/

236       Polina Devitt. “Russia will suspend grain exports for 6 weeks if its quota runs out in mid-May.” Reuters (2020), https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-russia-grains-idUSL8N2C52  

237       Michael Corkery and David Yaffe-Bellany. “The Food Chain’s Weakest Link: Slaughterhouses.” The New York Times (2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/business/coronavirus-meat-slaughterhouses.html

238       Singapore. “30×30 Express – Ramping Up Local Production to Enhance Singapore’s Food Security.” Ministry of Sustainability and the Environment (2020), https://www.mse.gov.sg/resource-room/category/2020-04-08-press-release-on-30-x-30-express/

239       Chang Ai-Lien. “Singapore sets 30% goal for home-grown food by 2030.” The Straits Times (2019), https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/spore-sets-30-goal-for-home-grown-food-by-2030

240       ISED, “Government of Canada continues to strengthen Canada’s biomanufacturing sector.” CISION (2021), https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/government-of-canada-continues-to-strengthen-canada-s-biomanufacturing-sector-877941516.html

241       Anne Damiani. “France to give €7 billion boost to healthcare system.” Euroactiv (2021), https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/france-to-give-e7-billion-boost-to-healthcare-system/

242       Asher Mullard. “How COVID vaccines are being divvied up around the world.” Nature (2020), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03370-6

243       Stuart Blume and Maurizia Mezza. “How the sun was privatized.” Eurozine (2021), https://www.eurozine.com/how-the-sun-was-privatized/

244       Mia Sheldon. “The difficulty of vaccinating the world against COVID-19 is enormous.” CBC (2021), https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/global-vaccine-supply-1.6056550

245       Paul Dyer. “Policy and Institutional responses to COVID-19: South Korea.” Brookings (2021), https://www.brookings.edu/research/policy-and-institutional-responses-to-covid-19-south-korea/

246       Gyuwon Jung and al.“Too Much Information: Assessing Privacy Risks of Contact Trace Data Disclosure on People With COVID-19 in South Korea.” 8 Front Public Health 305, 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7314957/

247       Anna Wnuk and al. “The acceptance of Covid-19 tracking technologies: The role of perceived threat, lack of control, and ideological beliefs.” 15(9) PLoS One, 2020, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7485859/

248       Annalies Winny. “In New Zealand, A Response to be Proud of.” Global Health Now (2021), https://www.globalhealthnow.org/2021-04/new-zealand-response-be-proud

249       Matthew Pelletier. “How PEI Set the Bar for the Canadian COVID-19 Response.” Nouvelle (2020), https://nouvelle.news/2020/09/the-little-province-that-could-how-pei-set-the-bar-for-the-canadian-covid-19-response/

250       Jackie Dunham. “Predicting the next pandemic: New online tool ranks viruses’ potential to infect humans.” CTV News (2021), https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/predicting-the-next-pandemic-new-online-tool-ranks-viruses-potential-to-infect-humans-1.5379482

251       National Science Foundation. “Predictive Intelligence for Pandemic Prevention Phase I: Development Grants.” United States (2021), https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2021/nsf21590/nsf21590.htm

252       SciTechDaily. “Predicting the Next Pandemic Virus Is Harder Than We Think – Here’s Why.” (2021), https://scitechdaily.com/predicting-the-next-pandemic-virus-is-harder-than-we-think-heres-why/

253       Rachel Kraus. “Injecting this sensor under your skin could prevent future pandemics.” Mashable (2020), https://mashable.com/article/under-the-skin-sensor-flu-pandemic-coronavirus

254       Jonathan Josephs. “Quantas boss: Governments to insist on vaccines for flying.” BBC (2021), https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56460329

255       Aljazeera. “Austrians refusing COVID vaccine will face up to $4,000 fines.” (2021), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/12/9/austria-plans-to-fine-coronavirus-vaccine-holdouts-up-to-4000

256       Anne Marie Lecompte. “Le Québec imposera une contribution santé aux non-vaccinés, dit François Legault.” Radio-Canada (2022), https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1853357/demission-arruda-legault-boileau-direction-sante-publique-contribution

257       Rachel Treisman. “Singapore will stop covering the medical bills of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients.” NPR (2021), https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-liveupdates/2021/11/09/1053889069/singapore-medical-bills-covid-19-patients-unvaccinated-by-choice#:~:text=Music%20Of%202021-,Singapore%20will%20stop%20paying%20the%20medical%20bills%20of%20unvaccinated%20COVID,on%20its%20health%20care%20system

258       Public Health Ontario. “Wastewater Surveillance of COVID-19.” 2021, https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/phm/2021/04/public-health-measures-wastewater-surveillance.pdf?la=en

259       Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS).”, https://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/surveillance/wastewater-surveillance/wastewater-surveillance.html

260       Nicole Mather. “How we accelerated clinical trials in the age of coronavirus.” Nature (2020), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02416-z

261       Melody M. Bomgardner. “Ginkgo to expand COVID-19 response with $1.1 billion US government loan.” Chemical & Engineering News (2020), https://cen.acs.org/pharmaceuticals/vaccines/Ginkgo-expand-COVID-19-response/98/i47

262       The Lancet. “Genomic Sequencing in pandemics.” 397 The Lancet 10273, 2021, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00257-9/fulltext

263       Serge Horbach. “Pandemic Publishing: Medical journals drastically speed up their publication process for Covid-19.” Quantitative Science Studies, 2020, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.18.045963v1.full

264       Crowdfight COVID-19, accessed April 14th, 2022, https://crowdfightcovid19.org/

265       ZOE COVID Study, accessed April 14th, 2022, https://covid.joinzoe.com/