Chief executives from OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft AI, and Google DeepMind have joined forces with biotechnology specialists to call on the United States Congress to introduce mandatory safety screenings for purchases of synthetic DNA. The letter, signed by prominent figures in artificial intelligence and biology, argues that while custom-made genetic material has accelerated vaccine development and basic research, it also presents a clear biosecurity risk: a malicious actor could order DNA sequences designed to recreate dangerous pathogens.
Synthetic DNA—artificially manufactured genetic material that can be ordered online and delivered like any other laboratory supply—is already used to create life-saving medicines, engineer microorganisms, and store vast amounts of digital data. Some companies voluntarily screen orders and customers, but there is currently no legal requirement to do so anywhere in the world. The signatories describe screening as “one of the best understood and least disruptive biosecurity measures available.”
The letter also calls for mandatory record-keeping, not only to investigate suspicious activity after the fact but because “awareness of traceability deters misuse.” The authors stress that such records would allow authorities to trace threats that evade initial screening, “including when individual sequences would not raise concern in isolation.”
AI Lowers the Knowledge Barrier
The signatories note that while the risk of synthetic DNA misuse is not new, the rapid pace of progress in artificial intelligence is. AI systems can now outperform PhD-level virologists on questions about highly technical laboratory procedures. As these systems improve, experts warn that the knowledge barriers that have historically prevented bad actors from obtaining biological weapons will “meaningfully erode.”
Earlier this year, researchers from Johns Hopkins University, the University of Oxford, and Stanford University published an open letter arguing that while open-access scientific data has accelerated discovery, a small subset of new biological data poses biosecurity risks if misused. They called for technical tools such as watermarking and audit logs to verify legitimate users and track misuse.
Europe’s Regulatory Gap
The European Commission’s 2025 EU Biotech Act explicitly warns that “biotechnology introduces new biosecurity risks as the wider accessibility of these technologies increases their potential for misuse, posing significant health threats.” The Act identifies synthetic nucleic acid sequences (DNA and RNA) as “biotechnology products of concern” and proposes a new EU-wide framework to regulate them.
However, no European law currently mandates screening of synthetic DNA purchases. The Commission noted that divergent or absent national rules fail to offer a level playing field to competitors and weaken prevention. This regulatory gap is particularly concerning given that synthetic DNA can be ordered and shipped across borders, making the issue inherently global.
The push from AI leaders comes as European institutions grapple with broader biosecurity challenges. For instance, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) recently fast-tracked three Ebola vaccines as the Bundibugyo outbreak spreads in Central Africa, highlighting the dual-use nature of biotechnology. Meanwhile, autonomous machines and drones are reshaping tunnel safety and emissions in Europe, demonstrating how AI and automation are transforming multiple sectors.
In a separate development, Airbus and BMW have partnered with French AI startup Mistral for defence and safety systems, underscoring the continent’s growing investment in AI capabilities. Yet the absence of binding rules on synthetic DNA leaves a critical vulnerability unaddressed.
The signatories of the letter to Congress argue that the time to act is now, before AI systems further erode the expertise needed to design biological weapons. They call for international coordination, noting that the problem cannot be solved by the United States alone. For Europe, the EU Biotech Act offers a starting point, but translating its proposals into enforceable legislation remains a political challenge.
