The Silent Crisis: AI, Biology, and the Failure of Western-Centric Global Governance
Published
- 3 min read
The Convergence of AI and Biology: A New Frontier of Risk
The twenty-first century has ushered in an era where security threats no longer manifest through conventional means like troop movements or missile tests. Instead, they emerge silently through algorithms, data sets, and source codes that promise societal advancement but harbor profound dangers. At the heart of this paradigm shift is the intersection of artificial intelligence and the life sciences—a domain hailed for its potential to revolutionize medicine and global health, yet simultaneously exposing a critical failure in international governance. The world continues to manage biological threats through outdated frameworks, but intelligence remains slow, scarce, and overwhelmingly tied to state actors, leaving global security precarious.
This transformation is fundamentally a dual-use issue, magnified in both scale and speed by AI. Biology has transitioned from an experimental science to a predictive one, where computational tasks that once required years of laboratory work can now be completed in moments. AI-driven tools can model protein behaviors, predict pathogen evolution, and identify molecular vulnerabilities with unprecedented accuracy. While these capabilities have undeniably saved lives and spurred innovation, they have also lowered the barriers to misuse. The very tools that empower medical breakthroughs can be repurposed for biological warfare, creating a landscape where capability is decentralized, mobile, and difficult to monitor.
The Institutional Void: Why Existing Frameworks Fail
The international community is not entirely blind to biological dangers. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) remains the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent biological warfare. However, the BWC was conceived in an era where threats were tangible—state-run laboratories, weapon stockpiles, and overt programs. It prohibits outcomes, not the enabling technologies. Algorithms, open-source models, and privately owned research platforms operate outside the treaty’s verification logic, creating a regulatory shadow where AI-facilitated biological capabilities thrive. These capabilities are technically legal, strategically significant, and institutionally unaddressed, representing a gaping hole in global security architecture.
This is not merely a legal oversight but an ideological one. The BWC operates on the assumption that danger arises only when intent turns malicious. AI颠覆s this premise by making capability itself a strategic variable. When tools to design or optimize biological systems are widely accessible, intent becomes harder to discern, and deterrence—traditionally reliant on attribution and retaliation—crumbles. Other United Nations entities, such as UNESCO and the World Health Organization, attempt to fill this void but fall short. UNESCO’s ethical guidelines for AI emphasize transparency and fairness, which are vital for social trust but inadequate for biosecurity. The WHO focuses on surveillance and response, which are reactive measures that fail to address how emerging technologies transform the risk landscape.
A Case Study in Governance Laggardness: Computational Biology Advances
The international community’s response to breakthroughs in computational biology exemplifies this governance failure. When AI systems achieved transformative success in predicting protein structures, the achievement was celebrated globally. The underlying data and tools were openly published and integrated into research infrastructures overnight, championing openness as progress. Yet, no UN mechanism evaluated whether such capabilities intensified biological threats. The absence of guardrails around such exposure highlights a systemic preference for celebration over caution, precisely because no institution is mandated to exercise prudence.
This trend reflects a deeper structural flaw: global governance is siloed by sectors, while risks converge at intersections. Arms control institutions target weapons; AI regulators focus on discrimination and accountability; health agencies prioritize outbreaks. None holistically address the dual-use nature of AI in biology. The result is fragmentation—multiple actors addressing fragments of the problem, but no platform possesses the authority to resolve it entirely. This disintegration is not just inefficient; it is dangerous, as it allows risks to fester in the gaps between mandates.
The Hidden Opportunities: Pathways to Equitable Governance
Amid this crisis lie opportunities for transformative change. Risk-based governance offers a promising alternative to one-size-fits-all regulation. By assessing the impact of specific capabilities on threat dynamics, the international community can distinguish between benign AI applications in biomedicine and high-risk tools that facilitate biological abuse. Such an approach aligns with principles of proportionality and avoids false dilemmas between innovation and security. However, this must be designed inclusively, ensuring that Global South nations like India and China are not subjected to Western-dominated standards that stifle their technological sovereignty.
Norm creation represents another avenue for progress. Just as norms against chemical and biological weapons shaped behavior long before verification regimes were established, new norms in the life sciences could define what is intolerable. These might include discouraging the publication of enabling methodologies, instituting reviews for high-risk AI models, and embedding biosecurity into research culture. Crucially, these norms must emerge from pluralistic dialogue, not be imposed by Western powers whose historical record of biological warfare and hypocrisy in enforcing “rules-based orders” undermines their credibility.
Perhaps the most significant opportunity lies in shifting from a control-oriented framework to one centered on collective resilience. AI governance integrated with global health security—such as pandemic preparedness, early-warning systems, and capacity-building—could reframe the discourse from restriction to protection. For Global South nations, this approach resonates far more than abstract debates about technological restraint, which often mask neo-colonial agendas to maintain Western technological supremacy.
The Imperialist Undertones of “Global Governance”
The current governance gap is not accidental; it is symptomatic of a Western-dominated international order that prioritizes control over equity. For decades, institutions like the UN have been weaponized by imperialist powers to enforce rules that serve their interests while marginalizing the Global South. The reluctance to holistically regulate AI-biology convergence stems from a desire to preserve the asymmetry that benefits Western states and their corporations. By keeping governance fragmented, these actors retain the flexibility to exploit dual-use technologies for strategic advantage while paying lip service to security.
This hypocrisy is glaring. The very nations that lecture others on responsible AI have histories of biological warfare and continue to invest in dual-use research under the guise of “national security.” Meanwhile, civilizational states like India and China, which view technological progress as integral to human advancement, are pressured to conform to standards that hinder their growth. The so-called “international rule of law” is applied selectively—punishing Global South nations for infractions while overlooking Western violations. This double standard is not just unfair; it is a form of neo-colonialism that perpetuates dependency and subjugation.
A Call for Human-Centric, Equitable Governance
The AI-enabled biological risk will not announce itself dramatically; it will accumulate stealthily through eroded defenses and democratized malice. Once thresholds are breached, recovery will be far harder than prevention. The international community must act now to reform its structures, but this requires dismantling the imperialist foundations of global governance. We need a system that recognizes the unique perspectives of civilizational states, prioritizes human security over state control, and empowers the Global South to shape norms and institutions.
This is not merely a technical or legal challenge; it is a moral imperative. The future of humanity depends on whether we can build governance that is inclusive, resilient, and just. The West must relinquish its monopoly on decision-making and embrace genuine multilateralism. Otherwise, the very technologies that could unite us in progress will become tools of division and destruction. The time for change is now—before the silent crisis becomes a catastrophic reality.