핵심 요약
되돌리기 어려운 거울 생명체 위험에 대해 기술 실현 이전의 국제적 예방 규제를 주장한다.
논증 분석
논리구조
-
분자 손잡이성의 반전이 자연계의 면역·생태적 제어와 맞지 않을 수 있다는 가능성을 위험 논거로 제시한다. 실제 발생 사례를 보고한 것은 아니다.
-
공개 연구의 잠재적 이익보다 통제 불가능한 방출의 손실이 크다는 예방 원칙을 적용한다. 위험 확률이나 기대손실의 수치 추정은 없다.
-
Asilomar의 자율 규범을 참고하되 오늘날 연구의 국제성·규모 때문에 국가 간 합의와 공공·민간의 공동 규율이 필요하다고 본다.
-
자금·연구 거버넌스, 공급망 감독, AI 안전장치, 환경 감시를 다층적 정책으로 제안한다. 여기서는 실험·제작 방법이 아니라 제도 설계 차원의 논지만 정리한다.
결론
가능성과 실제 실현을 구분한다. 분자 연구 일반과 자율 증식하는 생명체 연구의 규제 경계, 국제 합의의 집행 가능성은 추가 논의가 필요하다. 51년 전 회의라는 연혁 외에 적합한 정량 지표가 없어 통계를 만들지 않았다.
토론 질문
되돌릴 수 없는 위험을 이유로 연구를 제한할 때 근거 수준과 금지 범위는 누가 결정해야 할까? 안전한 기초 연구의 여지를 남기면서 국제 이탈을 어떻게 줄일까?
원문
Playing catch-up with the technology is not an option
Illustration: The Economist
SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY is moving fast and artificial intelligence is turbocharging it. Soon scientists may be able to create whole cells from scratch. This could allow the AI -assisted exploration of completely unnatural biochemistries.
One such is mirror life. Many organic molecules come in two asymmetrical forms, like your hands. Amino acids and sugars can in theory take on both a left- and right-handed form which cannot be superimposed. In nature, organisms generally contain only one of those forms for each molecule. However, an artificial cell could have its molecules’ handedness reversed. That could shed light on reasons behind handedness. Perhaps the anti-molecules may turn out to be valuable as drugs, say.
Yet any potential benefits pale beside the threats. Immune systems may not recognise mirror bacteria, in the way that a glove will not fit the wrong hand. Mirror bacteria may therefore become wildly pathogenic. Because viruses and predatory amoebas that keep natural pathogens in check may be unable to control them, they could ravage ecosystems. If mirror life escaped from the lab, it would be impossible to recall.
Luckily, unlike many past technologies, there is still time to put controls in place. Governments and scientists must act now. Some biologists are already calling for pre-emptive measures. This has echoes of the Asilomar meeting of (mostly Western) biotechnologists 51 years ago that set voluntary safety guidelines for genetic engineering. But today’s practitioners recognise that would not be enough. Biotech is now vastly larger, more capable, more profitable and more international than it was then. China is a force.
Chart: The Economist
The first necessity is for all countries capable of the research to agree not to fund it, and to ban public and private work leading in this direction—and to do both today, well before synthetic cells are possible. Next comes detecting and stopping mavericks who try to create mirror life furtively. This requires bolstering the system of monitoring and reporting fishy orders placed with biochemicals suppliers. Requests for opposite-handed molecules must be reported alongside the current screening for DNA sequences that might form parts of pathogens. Publicly available AI models should have guardrails to stop them being used for mirror biochemistry. Last, in case mirror life does ever escape containment, biosurveillance tests must be developed to pick out wrong-handed molecules in the wild and sound a warning.
Rational state actors, or even terrorists with earthly objectives, are unlikely to create mirror life deliberately as a weapon, because once it had been released it would be uncontrollable. Companies have even less reason to dabble in an outlawed market. And if some opposite-handed molecule had black-market value as a recreational drug, criminal enterprises have no interest in letting loose something that could wipe out their customers.
Irrational actors exist, as the Japanese found out when Aum Shinrikyo, a doomsday cult, tried to build bioweapons. But the more countermeasures are in place, the easier such psychopaths are to stop. No one can know where the advent of synthetic cells will lead. If humanity cannot deal in advance with a threat when everyone’s interests are aligned, it cannot hope to tackle the unknown unknowns of the future.■
Subscribers to The Economist can sign up to our Opinion newsletter, which brings together the best of our leaders, columns, guest essays and reader correspondence.