Hide table of contents

Summary

  • Hacking biological data (ex: medical health data, food production data, water supply data, and scientific data) has more economic/health/security costs than most commercial data. 
  • Hacks on expensive/critical biotech equipment are also being developed. These could be weaponised. 
  • Biosafety/biosecurity researchers, industry employees, and industry leaders are not aware of the latest cybersecurity risks/solutions. The healthcare and agrifood industries especially are critically important and underprepared.

 

Context: this is a summary of an interview on the intersection of cybersecurity and biosecurity (full recording here). I invited Dr. Kathryn Millet to speak about it. She is the founder of a biosecurity consultancy called Biosecure and the creator of the course, Next Generation Biosecurity: Responding to Biorisks in the 21st Century. 

 

Raw Notes:

  • Every technology we develop has 'dual use risks.' Ie. Both potential benefits and potential risks. 
  • Traditional biorisk management is about locking up pathogens and toxins away from people. So that authorised workers aren't harmed and unauthorised releases don't happen.
  • Biological weapons don't just present a cost to the healthcare industry. They can also threaten food security, national security, political stability, and economic stability. 
  • Biotechnology is becoming faster, cheaper, easier, and smaller to use. This is making it easier for individuals to create benefits/risks. Whereas traditionally, it would take enormous government efforts to enable this. 
  • There is increasing automation and digitisation in biotech equipment and data. This makes the equipment/data vulnerable to cybersecurity threats as well as biosecurity threats. 
  • Why is cybersecurity + biosecurity a neglected intersectional problem
    • Hacks on biotech equipment/data have larger costs than average commercial equipment/data. 
    • But leadership/employees in agrifood/healthcare industries are less aware of cutting-edge cybersecurity. 
    • At the same time, cybersecurity is generally neglected as a 'positive externality' (everyone would be better off if all companies invested in cybersecurity, but individual companies have an incentive to save costs by neglecting cybersecurity).
  • Older, larger companies using biotechnology often have older (legacy) software and equipment that's less secure. Newer, smaller companies using biotechnology are often more concerned with getting production running quickly to get revenue than cybersecurity protocols. 
  • There are shared solutions for improving both preparedness for naturally ocurring pandemics and security against biological weapons. So there is some opportunity for people to collaborate, regardless of which cause they estimate to be more risky.
  • Right now, there's a lot of disagreement on what cyberbiosecurity means. Researchers aren't collaborating much on it and industry-academia collaborations are near non-existent. It's the beginning of the field. 
  • Kathryn doesn't believe in adding restrictive regulations to scientists working with dangerous biological materials/data. She believes much more in educating these scientists to make individual decisions about (cyber)biosecurity. Also, increasing transparency/open source monitoring of these scientists' work.

 

  • Dr. Kathryn Millet's course
  • A summary of her course that I wrote. 

11

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Comments1


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

@Tessa - thank you for introducing me to Dr. Millet's course in your reading list on biosecurity!

Curated and popular this week
Garrison
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
This is the full text of a post from "The Obsolete Newsletter," a Substack that I write about the intersection of capitalism, geopolitics, and artificial intelligence. I’m a freelance journalist and the author of a forthcoming book called Obsolete: Power, Profit, and the Race to build Machine Superintelligence. Consider subscribing to stay up to date with my work. Wow. The Wall Street Journal just reported that, "a consortium of investors led by Elon Musk is offering $97.4 billion to buy the nonprofit that controls OpenAI." Technically, they can't actually do that, so I'm going to assume that Musk is trying to buy all of the nonprofit's assets, which include governing control over OpenAI's for-profit, as well as all the profits above the company's profit caps. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman already tweeted, "no thank you but we will buy twitter for $9.74 billion if you want." (Musk, for his part, replied with just the word: "Swindler.") Even if Altman were willing, it's not clear if this bid could even go through. It can probably best be understood as an attempt to throw a wrench in OpenAI's ongoing plan to restructure fully into a for-profit company. To complete the transition, OpenAI needs to compensate its nonprofit for the fair market value of what it is giving up. In October, The Information reported that OpenAI was planning to give the nonprofit at least 25 percent of the new company, at the time, worth $37.5 billion. But in late January, the Financial Times reported that the nonprofit might only receive around $30 billion, "but a final price is yet to be determined." That's still a lot of money, but many experts I've spoken with think it drastically undervalues what the nonprofit is giving up. Musk has sued to block OpenAI's conversion, arguing that he would be irreparably harmed if it went through. But while Musk's suit seems unlikely to succeed, his latest gambit might significantly drive up the price OpenAI has to pay. (My guess is that Altman will still ma
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
When we built a calculator to help meat-eaters offset the animal welfare impact of their diet through donations (like carbon offsets), we didn't expect it to become one of our most effective tools for engaging new donors. In this post we explain how it works, why it seems particularly promising for increasing support for farmed animal charities, and what you can do to support this work if you think it’s worthwhile. In the comments I’ll also share our answers to some frequently asked questions and concerns some people have when thinking about the idea of an ‘animal welfare offset’. Background FarmKind is a donation platform whose mission is to support the animal movement by raising funds from the general public for some of the most effective charities working to fix factory farming. When we built our platform, we directionally estimated how much a donation to each of our recommended charities helps animals, to show users.  This also made it possible for us to calculate how much someone would need to donate to do as much good for farmed animals as their diet harms them – like carbon offsetting, but for animal welfare. So we built it. What we didn’t expect was how much something we built as a side project would capture peoples’ imaginations!  What it is and what it isn’t What it is:  * An engaging tool for bringing to life the idea that there are still ways to help farmed animals even if you’re unable/unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan. * A way to help people get a rough sense of how much they might want to give to do an amount of good that’s commensurate with the harm to farmed animals caused by their diet What it isn’t:  * A perfectly accurate crystal ball to determine how much a given individual would need to donate to exactly offset their diet. See the caveats here to understand why you shouldn’t take this (or any other charity impact estimate) literally. All models are wrong but some are useful. * A flashy piece of software (yet!). It was built as
Omnizoid
 ·  · 9m read
 · 
Crossposted from my blog which many people are saying you should check out!    Imagine that you came across an injured deer on the road. She was in immense pain, perhaps having been mauled by a bear or seriously injured in some other way. Two things are obvious: 1. If you could greatly help her at small cost, you should do so. 2. Her suffering is bad. In such a case, it would be callous to say that the deer’s suffering doesn’t matter because it’s natural. Things can both be natural and bad—malaria certainly is. Crucially, I think in this case we’d see something deeply wrong with a person who thinks that it’s not their problem in any way, that helping the deer is of no value. Intuitively, we recognize that wild animals matter! But if we recognize that wild animals matter, then we have a problem. Because the amount of suffering in nature is absolutely staggering. Richard Dawkins put it well: > The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In fact, this is a considerable underestimate. Brian Tomasik a while ago estimated the number of wild animals in existence. While there are about 10^10 humans, wild animals are far more numerous. There are around 10 times that many birds, between 10 and 100 times as many mammals, and up to 10,000 times as many both of reptiles and amphibians. Beyond that lie the fish who are shockingly numerous! There are likely around a quadrillion fish—at least thousands, and potentially hundreds of thousands o