Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
by Akash Kulgod
4 min read 1

39

CommunityPersonal development
Frontpage

 A brief call towards investigating the potential of volatolomics for high-throughput and non-invasive disease detection.

 

[Thanks to Nikhil Lal, Karolina Sulich, and Oliver Crook for reviewing and providing helpful comments]

 

Massive multiplexed nucleic acid detection and metagenomic sequencing are crucial tools for an early warning system as well as for continued monitoring of Global Catastrophic Biological Risks (GCBRs). However, such tools are not best suited for the kind of high-throughput and minimal or non-invasive screening that is crucial in both early and later stages of a pandemic to prevent transmission and exponential growth. The 2021 Apollo Program Report by the United States’ Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense accordingly notes the need to invest in technologies such as  - “New sensing capabilities … such as non-invasive volatolomics (the detection of volatile compounds emitted by an individual) … could permit constant passive monitoring of markers of infection without interfering with or inconveniencing our daily lives. Furthermore, non-invasive and minimally-invasive detection techniques could provide avenues to monitor high-risk, high-concern, and sentinel populations for infections, without disrupting daily life.” (emphasis mine).

The utility of volatolomics and its complementarity with other technologies is best illustrated by the use-case in public transit systems, although the same logic applies to other public spaces such as grocery stores, workspaces, stadiums, schools, nursing homes and prisons. The ability to passively and continuously screen every single person as they walk through a check-point and ascertain with a high degree of accuracy whether they harbour a particular infectious agent would be a huge asset at international hubs (preventing the start of a pandemic) and domestic hubs (restricting outbreaks to local nodes). The convenience of olfaction’s ‘user interface’ in disease detection - continuous, passive, and real-time - is highly valuable on its own, and also allows for a tiered screening system by enabling the triaging of other diagnostics such as CARMEN-Cas9.

A compelling case can be made for the foundations of such volatolomic technologies to already exist. Gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) has undergone rapid improvements, and handheld ‘e-noses’ have been developed by multiple teams at universities such as MIT and Weizmann, as well as a plethora of start-ups, with advances in AI enabling inferences that was hitherto unavailable. New technologies that utilise hybrid ‘bioelectronic’ systems also show great promise by utilising biological receptors interfaced with artificial neural networks - e.g. Koniku (which has reportedly collaborated with Airbus) and Scentian Bio (https://www.scentianbio.com/). Strikingly, the most robust biodetection sensor remains the humble domestic dog. Biodetection dogs were employed in all 6 permanently-inhabited continents during the Covid-19 pandemic, with studies indicating that dogs outperformed ‘gold-standard’ RT-PCR (Hag-Ali, 2021). John Hopkins and UPenn researchers sketched out the case for the promise of disease detection dogs during future pandemics (Otto, 2021), and Nature covered the field in a 2022 report. Advances in the interdisciplinary working dog field, such as genetics and brain-computer interfaces, will likely further augment our abilities to work with dogs, and canine-in-the-loop automation techniques are likely to provide refinement for machine and hybrid systems.

Despite their immense promise, a thorough review, map or synthesis of volatolomics in augmenting biosecurity does not yet appear to exist. Moreover, discussion on volatolomics appears absent in the effective altruism/x-risk community (only two mentions on the EA Forum both simply highlighting the Apollo report). While technological advancement is likely to continue without national/philanthropic funding, as incentives for startups are high given the lucrative medical screening space, effective deployment for state and international biosecurity will require extensive coordination, policy implementations, and cooperation amongst industry, academia, and state actors, something that may be unlikely to occur without explicit intervention. The nature of volatolomics technologies also raises critical ethical questions regarding data privacy and ownership, that would be crucial to resolve before any wide-spread deployment. It is especially worth noting that volatolomic technologies largely remains a FDA classification grey zone and there is incomplete understanding on how HIPAA compliance will be achieved with the unique features of olfactory data.

 

The promise of volatolomics for biosecurity coupled with the specific type of work required to actualize its potential would appear to make volatolomics x biosecurity a compelling case for effective altruism to focus on. A natural starting point readily emerges from the fact that Osmocosm, a premier machine olfaction conference based at MIT, will take place the week before EA Global Boston, this October 2023. 

 

Open questions

What are the main bottlenecks to deploying volatolomic technologies in real-world biosecurity settings? Are they based on technological, regulatory or pragmatic challenges?

How much utility can volatolomic technologies realistically deliver during different stages of a GBCR, given innate constraints to the technology, such as the likely need to train noses on a novel disease volatilome?

Who are the major stakeholders in this space? Are there feasible frameworks that would amplify collaboration and cooperation between them?

 

Resources

Two years of talks freely available on Osmocosm  -  https://www.osmocosm.org/ 

 

References

  1. Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense. The Apollo Program for Biodefense: Winning the Race Against Biological Threats. Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense. Washington, DC: January 2021 - https://biodefensecommission.org/reports/the-apollo-program-for-biodefense-winning-the-race-against-biological-threats/  
  2. Toward a disease-sniffing device that rivals a dog’s nose, MIT News - https://news.mit.edu/2021/disease-detection-device-dogs-0217 
  3. A sniff test for coronavirus? - Weizmann Compass - https://www.weizmann.ac.il/WeizmannCompass/sections/briefs/a-sniff-test-for-coronavirus 
  4. Airbus and Koniku Inc. embark on disruptive biotechnology solutions for aviation security operations - Airbus Press Release - https://www.airbus.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020-05-airbus-and-koniku-inc-embark-on-disruptive-biotechnology-solutions 
  5. Scientian Bio - https://www.scentianbio.com/ 
  6. Hag-Ali, M., AlShamsi, A.S., Boeijen, L. et al. The detection dogs test is more sensitive than real-time PCR in screening for SARS-CoV-2. Commun Biol 4, 686 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-02232-9 
  7. Otto, Cynthia M., et al. "The promise of disease detection dogs in pandemic response: lessons learned from COVID-19." Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 17 (2023): e20. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2021.183 
  8. The dogs learning to sniff out disease, Nature, doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01629-8 
     

39

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments1


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Tessa A 🔸3
0
0

I recall meeting Karolina M. Sulich, the VP of Osmocosm, at EAGxBerlin last year, and thought some of her machine olfaction x biosecurity ideas were really cool! I'd be stoked for more people to look into this.

Reply
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 16m read
 · 
Applications are currently open for the next cohort of AIM's Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program in August 2025. We've just published our in-depth research reports on the new ideas for charities we're recommending for people to launch through the program. This article provides an introduction to each idea, and a link to the full report. You can learn more about these ideas in our upcoming Q&A with Morgan Fairless, AIM's Director of Research, on February 26th.   Advocacy for used lead-acid battery recycling legislation Full report: https://www.charityentrepreneurship.com/reports/lead-battery-recycling-advocacy    Description Lead-acid batteries are widely used across industries, particularly in the automotive sector. While recycling these batteries is essential because the lead inside them can be recovered and reused, it is also a major source of lead exposure—a significant environmental health hazard. Lead exposure can cause severe cardiovascular and cognitive development issues, among other health problems.   The risk is especially high when used-lead acid batteries (ULABs) are processed at informal sites with inadequate health and environmental protections. At these sites, lead from the batteries is often released into the air, soil, and water, exposing nearby populations through inhalation and ingestion. Though data remain scarce, we estimate that ULAB recycling accounts for 5–30% of total global lead exposure. This report explores the potential of launching a new charity focused on advocating for stronger ULAB recycling policies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The primary goal of these policies would be to transition the sector from informal, high-pollution recycling to formal, regulated recycling. Policies may also improve environmental and safety standards within the formal sector to further reduce pollution and exposure risks.   Counterfactual impact Cost-effectiveness analysis: We estimate that this charity could generate abou
sawyer🔸
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Note: This started as a quick take, but it got too long so I made it a full post. It's still kind of a rant; a stronger post would include sources and would have gotten feedback from people more knowledgeable than I. But in the spirit of Draft Amnesty Week, I'm writing this in one sitting and smashing that Submit button. Many people continue to refer to companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind as "frontier AI labs". I think we should drop "labs" entirely when discussing these companies, calling them "AI companies"[1] instead. While these companies may have once been primarily research laboratories, they are no longer so. Continuing to call them labs makes them sound like harmless groups focused on pushing the frontier of human knowledge, when in reality they are profit-seeking corporations focused on building products and capturing value in the marketplace. Laboratories do not directly publish software products that attract hundreds of millions of users and billions in revenue. Laboratories do not hire armies of lobbyists to control the regulation of their work. Laboratories do not compete for tens of billions in external investments or announce many-billion-dollar capital expenditures in partnership with governments both foreign and domestic. People call these companies labs due to some combination of marketing and historical accident. To my knowledge no one ever called Facebook, Amazon, Apple, or Netflix "labs", despite each of them employing many researchers and pushing a lot of genuine innovation in many fields of technology. To be clear, there are labs inside many AI companies, especially the big ones mentioned above. There are groups of researchers doing research at the cutting edge of various fields of knowledge, in AI capabilities, safety, governance, etc. Many individuals (perhaps some readers of this very post!) would be correct in saying they work at a lab inside a frontier AI company. It's just not the case that any of these companies as
Dorothy M.
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
If you don’t typically engage with politics/government, this is the time to do so. If you are American and/or based in the U.S., reaching out to lawmakers, supporting organizations that are mobilizing on this issue, and helping amplify the urgency of this crisis can make a difference. Why this matters: 1. Millions of lives are at stake 2. Decades of progress, and prior investment, in global health and wellbeing are at risk 3. Government funding multiplies the impact of philanthropy Where things stand today (February 27, 2025) The Trump Administration’s foreign aid freeze has taken a catastrophic turn: rather than complying with a court order to restart paused funding, they have chosen to terminate more than 90% of all USAID grants and contracts. This stunningly reckless decision comes just 30 days into a supposed 90-day review of foreign aid. This will cause a devastating loss of life. Even beyond the immediate deaths, the long-term consequences are dire. Many of these programs rely on supply chains, health worker training, and community trust that have taken years to build, and which have already been harmed by U.S. actions in recent weeks. Further disruptions will actively unravel decades of health infrastructure development in low-income countries. While some funding may theoretically remain available, the reality is grim: the main USAID payment system remains offline and most staff capable of restarting programs have been laid off. Many people don’t believe these terminations were carried out legally. But NGOs and implementing partners are on the brink of bankruptcy and insolvency because the government has not paid them for work completed months ago and is withholding funding for ongoing work (including not transferring funds and not giving access to drawdowns of lines of credit, as is typical for some awards). We are facing a sweeping and permanent shutdown of many of the most cost-effective global health and development programs in existence that sa
Relevant opportunities
View more