Metaculus Help: Spread the word
If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.
Ragnarök Question Series: If a global catastrophe occurs, will it be due to biotechnology or bioengineered organisms?
No single disease currently exists that combines the worst-case levels of transmissibility, lethality, resistance to therapies, and global reach. But we know that the worst-case attributes can be realized independently. For example, some diseases exhibit nearly a 100% case fatality ratio in the absence of treatment, such as rabies or septicemic plague. The 1918 flu has a track record of spreading to virtually every human community worldwide. Chickenpox and HSV-1, can reportedly reach over 95% of a given population.
The past decades have seen rapid advances in biotechnology, in part due to the falling costs of gene sequencing and synthesis. Improvements in ease-of-use of certain specific kinds of biotechnology bring increased concerns about biological risks. Gene synthesisers have the capacity to turn digital sequence data into physical genetic sequences, enabling individuals to create viruses from digital files (as was done with the 1918 Spanish Flu virus).
The implications of these technologies are worrying, especially given the track record of state-run bioweapon research applying cutting-edge science and technology to design pathogens that are more virulent, more resistant to therapies, harder to diagnose and treat than those in nature.
While there is no evidence of state-run bioweapons programs directly attempting to develop or deploy bioweapons that would pose an catastrophic risk, the logic of deterrence and mutually assured destruction could create such incentives, especially in a more unstable political climate, or following a breakdown of the Biological Weapons Convention.
Deliberate or accidental gene drives that might not directly target human populations may also pose major risks. There are broadly three features that give rise to the ecological risk of gene drives:
(i) a gene drive is passed on from one generation to the next at a rate greater than occurs naturally; (ii) a gene drive construct can have effects on other parts of the organism's genome beyond the target; and (iii) gene-drive modified organisms are designed to spread, along with their effects, into the larger environment.
Examples of such unanticipated consequences that could rapidly proliferate the ecosystem are:
- New phenotypes with a different (possibly increased) capacity to spread diseases or pathogens,
- Cascading effects on food web caused by decrease in abundance of predators leading to possible loss of ecosystem services,
- The gene drive being acquired by, and spreads within, non-target species (possibly humans), leading to suppression or modification of the nontarget species.
Finally, accidents. A report by Gryphon Scientific, Risk and Benefit Analysis of Gain of Function Research, has laid out a detailed risk assessments of potentially pandemic pathogen research, suggesting that the annual probability of a global pandemic resulting from an accident with this type of research in the United States is 0.002% to 0.1%. Since similar research is done outside of the United States, in potentially more accident-prone labs, the world seems to be exposed to worryingly high level of risk from accidental outbreaks (which some have estimated to be around 0.016% to 0.8% chance of a pandemic each year).
In the headline question to this series, we defined a global catastrophe as a 10% decrease in the world population in any period of 5 years.
If a global catastrophe happens before 2100, will it be principally due to the deployment biotechnologies or bioengineered organisms?
The question resolves positively if a global biotechnology catastrophe occurs resulting from the deployment biotechnologies or bioengineered organisms (including viruses) that claims at least 10% in any period of 5 years or less before 2100, and resolves as ambiguous if no global catastrophe occurs. If the failure-mode is less direct, such as through indirect ecological effects of gene drives, the catastrophe must be generally believed very unlikely in a counterfactual world with little or no biotechnological interventions but otherwise similar to ours.
This question is part of the Ragnarök Question Series. Please have a look at the other questions and contribute your insights, analyses, and factorizations, especially on the questions on what might happen if a global catastrophe occurs (for which we are currently short on predictions):
Also, please check out our questions on whether a global catastrophe will occur by 2100, and if so, which?:
All results are analysed here, and will be updated periodically.
Metaculus help: Predicting
Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.
The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.
The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.
Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.
This question is not yet open for predictions.
Metaculus help: Community Stats
Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.
When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.