While the ability to deliberately engineer pathogens has been constrained to high-end labs run by top researchers, the technology to achieve this is rapidly becoming cheaper and more widespread.
It has been hypothesized that genetic modification can potentially cause changes in metabolism, though results are conflicting in animal studies.
[medical citation needed] Theoretically, antibiotic resistance can occur by consuming genetically modified plants.
[2] When intentional, these mutations can serve to adapt the pathogen to a laboratory setting, understand the mechanism of transmission or pathogenesis, or in the development of therapeutics.
[17] In 2011, two laboratories published reports of mutational screens of avian influenza viruses, identifying variants which become transmissible through the air between ferrets.
[20][21] While the stated goal of this research was to improve surveillance and prepare for influenza viruses which are of particular risk in causing a pandemic,[22] there was significant concern that the laboratory strains themselves could escape.
[23] Marc Lipsitch and Alison P. Galvani coauthored a paper in PLoS Medicine arguing that experiments in which scientists manipulate bird influenza viruses to make them transmissible in mammals deserve more intense scrutiny as to whether or not their risks outweigh their benefits.
[28] The rules outline how experiments are to be evaluated for risks, safety measures, and potential benefits; prior to funding.
[30] One way in which CRISPR editing can cause existential risk is through gene drives, which are said to have potential to "revolutionize" ecosystem management.
[32] These gene drives were originally engineered in January 2015 by Ethan Bier and Valentino Gantz; this editing was spurred by the discovery of CRISPR-Cas9.
In late 2015, DARPA started to study approaches that could halt gene drives if they went out of control and threatened biological species.