The clearest definition comes directly from Interpol’s official website:
“Bioterrorism refers to the intentional release of biological agents or toxins for the purpose of harming or killing humans, animals or plants with the intent to intimidate or coerce a government or civilian population to further political or social objectives.”
Bioterrorism represents an insidious and potentially devastating threat, involving the deliberate release of pathogenic biological agents or toxins with the aim of causing harm to humans, animals, crops, and vegetation in general.
This form of attack not only endangers public health—triggering epidemics and high mortality rates—but also incites widespread panic and large-scale destabilisation, often with the intent of exerting political or social pressure on governments and civilian populations.
Its unpredictable nature makes it particularly difficult to counter, necessitating a coordinated response from multiple actors, including institutional bodies. Effectively managing a bioterrorist attack requires comprehensive strategies for prevention, preparedness, and intervention, involving both national and international entities. A timely response and the sharing of knowledge are crucial to strengthening global defence capabilities against this ever-evolving threat.
As recent events have starkly demonstrated, the landscape of biological threats is becoming increasingly complex. In this scenario, artificial intelligence is emerging as a game-changer—serving both those who seek to exploit vulnerabilities and those striving to defend against them. Let’s examine how.
Takeaways
Between Biowarfare and Bioterrorism: two threats with a long history
Before examining the latest developments in these threats, it is essential to understand their origins and how they have evolved over time, starting with a clear distinction between the terms. Biowarfare and bioterrorism are often confused. While both involve the use of biological agents for destructive purposes, they differ in their objectives, methods of deployment, and the actors involved.
Biowarfare: the use of biological weapons in armed conflicts
Biological warfare refers to the deliberate use of pathogens—such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, or toxins—as weapons in military conflicts. These agents can be even more lethal than conventional weapons, as even small quantities can result in mass casualties. The use of biological weapons dates back to ancient times. As early as the Greek and Roman periods, water sources were deliberately contaminated with infected corpses. During the Middle Ages, besieging armies catapulted plague-infected bodies over city walls, as seen in the siege of Caffa in the 14th century.
The evolution of biological warfare can be traced through three distinct phases. From antiquity to 1900, before microbiology emerged as a scientific discipline thanks to the work of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch, it is often difficult to distinguish real biological attacks from mere myths or propaganda. Between 1900 and 1945, particularly during the two World Wars, national biological warfare programmes began to take shape, with countries such as Germany, Japan, the United States, and the Soviet Union conducting research into weaponised pathogens. From 1945 onwards, advances in biotechnology and biochemistry made biological agents more accessible, increasing concerns that not only states but also smaller groups or even individuals could develop offensive capabilities in this domain.
The use of biological agents in warfare has been restricted by international agreements such as the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). However, despite these regulations, the risk remains, particularly as genetic engineering creates new possibilities for enhancing pathogens, making them more resistant and lethal.
Bioterrorism: a threat targeting civilians
Unlike biological warfare, bioterrorism involves the deliberate use of biological agents against civilian populations with the aim of spreading panic, causing casualties, or inflicting economic damage. Bioterrorist attacks are often motivated by political or religious ideologies. The agents used may be naturally occurring or genetically modified to enhance their transmissibility and resistance to treatments.
One of the most infamous cases of bioterrorism in recent history was the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States (Amerithrax attacks), which exposed the difficulties of detecting and responding swiftly to such threats.
Health authorities, such as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), classify biological agents into three categories (A, B, and C) based on their ease of transmission, associated mortality rates, and potential for large-scale production. Among the most feared agents are Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Yersinia pestis (plague), the smallpox virus, and toxins such as botulinum toxin.
Although the distinction may seem subtle, the fundamental difference between biowarfare and bioterrorism lies in their objectives. Both threats involve the use of biological agents, but while biological warfare is a military strategy employed by states or armies in the context of armed conflicts, bioterrorism is a clandestine action targeting civilian populations with the aim of spreading terror and destabilising entire societies.
The use of AI in the development of new biological weapons
The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence is transforming the landscape of biological threats, raising serious concerns about its potential role in the creation of biological weapons. The convergence of AI with genetic editing techniques could facilitate the design of more dangerous pathogens, accelerating their spread and making containment strategies significantly more complex. Studies conducted in this field highlight how the increasing accessibility of AI-powered technologies is making the illicit manipulation of biological agents a more tangible possibility, thereby heightening the risk of bioterrorist attacks and the misuse of advanced biotechnological tools. To counter these threats, it is essential to adopt preventive measures and establish specific regulations, enforcing strict security standards and ensuring accountability for the developers of such technologies.
The debate on the catastrophic risks associated with AI fits into a broader reflection on existential threats to humanity. Toby Ord, in his book The Precipice, addresses this issue, pointing out that while the probability of large-scale catastrophic events is significant, institutional efforts to prevent them remain insufficient. Among the emerging dangers are engineered pandemics, uncontrolled artificial intelligence, and the deliberate use of pathogens for malevolent purposes.
The World Health Organization classifies biological weapons as one of the greatest global threats, placing them within the broader category of weapons of mass destruction, alongside chemical, nuclear, and radiological weapons.
“Biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin and plague can pose a difficult public health challenge causing large numbers of deaths in a short amount of time. Biological agents which are capable of secondary transmission can lead to epidemics. An attack involving a biological agent may mimic a natural event, which may complicate the public health assessment and response. In case of war and conflict, high-threat pathogens laboratories can be targeted, which might lead to serious public health consequences.Biological weapons form a subset of a larger class of weapons sometimes referred to as unconventional weapons or weapons of mass destruction, which also includes chemical, nuclear and radiological weapons. The use of biological agents is a serious concern, and the risk of using these agents in a terrorist attack is thought to be increasing”.
The role of LLMs and BDTs in the development of new biological weapons
This is where AI comes into play. The ability of artificial intelligence to analyse vast amounts of biological data and synthesise information could be harnessed not only for scientific progress but also for the development of dangerous biotechnologies, lowering the technical barriers to accessing such knowledge.
AI models, including Large Language Models (LLMs) and Biological Design Tools (BDTs), have the potential to simplify the creation of new pathogens, reducing the need for advanced expertise in biology to conduct hazardous genetic manipulations. In other words, LLMs such as GPT-4 and its successors could provide insights that overcome some of the historical obstacles to developing biological weapons. As these models evolve into multimodal laboratory assistants and autonomous scientific tools, their ability to support even non-expert users in laboratory activities will increase, further lowering the barriers to the misuse of biology.
LLMs are designed to process vast amounts of textual data and generate coherent, contextually relevant responses. In the biological field, these tools can be employed to: rapidly analyse scientific publications and identify patterns in large genetic datasets; assist in the design of experiments, helping researchers optimize laboratory protocols; translate complex scientific and biochemical articles into more accessible language, making critical information available to a broader audience.
However, this very accessibility introduces bioethical and security risks. LLMs could—whether intentionally or accidentally—provide guidance on designing pathogens, effectively lowering the level of expertise required for genetic engineering. For example, they might suggest methods for increasing a virus’s resistance to vaccines or indicate specific mutation combinations that enhance the transmissibility of an infectious agent.
BDTs, on the other hand, are AI-driven tools specifically designed for biological engineering and synthesis. These software systems combine advanced algorithms with genetic datasets to simulate mutations, optimize genetic sequences, and design synthetic organisms with tailored characteristics. In medical research, they can be used to develop new vaccines and gene therapies, optimize enzymes and proteins for pharmaceutical applications, simulate pathogen transmission to better understand its evolution.
However, in the wrong hands, BDTs could be exploited for nefarious purposes. AI could assist in engineering treatment-resistant pathogens by suggesting genetic modifications that enhance drug resistance or help a virus evade the immune system. It could also design hybrid pathogens, such as an engineered virus combining the transmissibility of measles with the lethality of smallpox. Additionally, BDTs could optimise the synthesis of harmful biological agents, reducing the time and cost required to genetically manipulate dangerous organisms.
The growing integration of AI with biotechnology presents both revolutionary opportunities and unprecedented risks. Without stringent safeguards and ethical regulations, these powerful tools could be misused, amplifying the threat posed by bioterrorism and biological warfare.
The integration of LLMs with BDTs could further amplify these risks, providing both theoretical knowledge (LLMs) and practical tools (BDTs) for the design and creation of new pathogens. This synergy could drastically lower the level of expertise required to develop biological weapons, increasing the likelihood that dangerous technologies could fall into the hands of non-specialist actors.
Although current AI models are limited in their ability to generate precise instructions for constructing biological weapons, future advancements could significantly enhance their effectiveness and accuracy. The increasing accessibility of DNA synthesis and synthetic biology techniques presents new challenges to biosecurity, making strict regulation essential. Mitigation strategies—such as monitoring the use of AI tools in biotechnology and developing systems to identify genetic modifications—are crucial in preventing potential misuse.
AI in support of defenders
The same studies cited so far also highlight the crucial role that artificial intelligence can play in the prevention, detection, and mitigation of bioterrorism. When used ethically and under strict regulation, AI provides advanced tools to monitor, analyse, and respond to biological threats, helping to prevent attacks and strengthen global security.
By continuously processing data from global health sources, research laboratories, and epidemiological surveillance systems, AI enables early detection of pathogens and biological threats. Machine learning algorithms can analyse genetic sequences to identify suspicious mutations indicative of artificial manipulation, while predictive models examine epidemiological trends to detect anomalies in disease spread—potentially identifying bioterrorist attacks before they escalate into pandemics. Additionally, advanced AI systems can monitor the dark web and criminal networks to intercept the exchange of information or suspicious transactions related to synthetic biology and biological weapons development.
AI also plays a key role in tracing and attributing biological attacks, allowing forensic genetic engineering techniques to determine the origin of a pathogen. DNA analysis can link a biological agent to its laboratory of origin, while AI-based analytical systems can reconstruct the chain of events leading to the pathogen’s release, distinguishing between deliberate attacks and natural outbreaks.
Beyond detection and attribution, AI can be used to monitor the use of advanced biotechnologies and prevent their misuse. Specialised algorithms can filter requests made to synthetic biology tools, blocking operations that may pose a security risk. Regulated language models could prevent the dissemination of instructions for creating biological weapons, while AI-powered authentication and access control systems could monitor the use of genetic databases and synthetic biology laboratories to detect and prevent suspicious activities.
AI also accelerates the development of countermeasures against bioterrorist threats, enabling the rapid design of vaccines and targeted therapies. By analysing the protein structures of new pathogens, AI can identify the most effective molecules for neutralisation, drastically reducing response times. AI algorithms can also simulate epidemic spread scenarios and suggest optimal containment strategies, supporting governments and health organisations in managing biological emergencies. This approach has already been successfully applied in the development of mRNA vaccines, such as those for COVID-19, demonstrating how AI can significantly shorten the time required to respond to biological threats.
Finally, AI can facilitate international cooperation and the strengthening of biosafety governance. AI-driven platforms can help harmonise global biosafety regulations, ensuring uniform standards to prevent the proliferation of biological weapons. Moreover, advanced AI models can be used to conduct automated audits in biotechnology laboratories, ensuring that genetic research complies with international non-proliferation laws.
Glimpses of Futures
To understand the possible future scenarios of bioterrorism, we can apply the STEPS framework, which allows us to analyse its impact across five key dimensions: Social, Technological, Economic, Political, and Sustainable.
S – SOCIAL
The future social impact of bioterrorism could be devastating, profoundly affecting the stability of societies on a global scale. The possibility that modified or synthesised pathogens might be used in deliberate attacks not only threatens public health but could also trigger waves of panic and erode trust in institutions, leading to unpredictable consequences. Unlike other forms of threat, bioterrorism operates invisibly and insidiously, destabilising entire healthcare systems and severely testing the response capabilities of authorities. The difficulty in distinguishing between a natural epidemic and a deliberate attack could further fuel conspiracy theories, creating divisions within communities and hindering efforts to contain emergencies.
T – TECHNOLOGICAL
The evolution of bioterrorism could significantly influence technological advancements, driving scientific research and innovation towards a delicate balance between progress and security. The growing accessibility of artificial intelligence and synthetic biology is already redefining how biological agents are designed, analyzed, and potentially manipulated. In the future, the risk of malicious use of these technologies could accelerate the development of new surveillance systems and advanced tools for monitoring biological threats, leading to stricter regulation in the biotechnology sector. The computational power of AI could be leveraged to detect genetic anomalies in emerging pathogens, helping to distinguish between natural organisms and artificially engineered variants.
Over time, the integration of advanced biotechnologies and AI may lead to greater automation in drug and vaccine research and production. The urgency to respond swiftly to potential bioterrorist threats could drive the adoption of AI-powered platforms for the design and testing of new therapies, significantly reducing development times and optimizing treatment efficacy. Biosafety technologies are likely to evolve substantially, leading to the development of advanced sensors for early pathogen detection and the deployment of biological defence systems in critical environments, such as research laboratories and healthcare infrastructure.
AI-driven emergency management systems could enhance response capabilities to outbreaks caused by bioterrorist attacks, optimizing containment strategies and resource distribution in public health crises.
E – ECONOMIC
A large-scale biological attack could cripple entire industries, disrupting supply chains and limiting workforce mobility, with devastating effects on global trade and financial market stability. At the same time, the perceived threat of bioterrorism could drive increased investment in biosafety technologies, prompting businesses and governments to allocate greater resources toward protecting critical infrastructure and developing advanced public health countermeasures. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries would likely benefit from heightened attention to biological security, leading to accelerated research and development of vaccines, antiviral drugs, and epidemiological monitoring tools. The surge in demand for biodefence solutions could also foster innovation in rapid diagnostic systems and pathogen detection technologies, reshaping the global biotech sector.
P – POLITICAL
The economic impact would inevitably influence public policy, leading to increased spending on health security and the establishment of emergency funds to manage potential crises. Governments might need to restructure national budgets, diverting more resources toward biomedical research, epidemiological surveillance, and pandemic preparedness, thereby reshaping national and international investment priorities. The central challenge will be to strike a balance between risk containment and economic resilience, ensuring that security measures do not stifle economic growth and global development. International cooperation could become increasingly necessary, as no single country can effectively combat biological threats alone. This may lead to new global agreements on biosecurity and the regulation of advanced biotechnologies, reinforcing multilateral efforts to mitigate bioterrorism risks.
S – SUSTAINABILITY
The impact of bioterrorism on sustainability could be profound and multidimensional, affecting environmental security, resource management, and global sustainability policies. The deliberate release of pathogens has the potential to disrupt entire ecosystems, harming biodiversity and altering natural balances in unpredictable ways. The contamination of soil, water, and agricultural resources could have long-term consequences for food security, reducing the availability of essential goods and jeopardising the resilience of agri-food systems. Moreover, the need to decontaminate vast areas affected by biological agents could lead to an intensified use of chemical disinfectants, increasing pollution and exacerbating environmental degradation. This could challenge global efforts to achieve sustainable development goals (SDGs), requiring new strategies to mitigate the ecological damage caused by bioterrorist activities. In this scenario, investments in bioremediation technologies and eco-friendly decontamination solutions could become essential to preserving environmental health while ensuring biosafety at a global scale.
