Executive summary
Biotechnology on the battlefield often refers to the use of gene editing, synthetic biology, engineered organisms, or biologically derived materials to enhance military capabilities. Previously considered speculative, these tools are now moving toward operational use, from synthetic bio-fuels and trauma care to gene-edited soldiers and engineered pathogens. China has emerged as a battlefield biotech front-runner due to sustained investment and civil-military integration. These advancements have led U.S. officials to call for urgent countermeasures. Meanwhile, NATO, the UK, and others are investing in dual-use innovation, while authoritarian states like North Korea or Russia are reportedly pursuing weaponised biological research.
Images Sourced From: Toon Lambrechts, fernandozhiminaicela, Parker Martin, DIMOC
Key Judgements
KJ-1. China will likely maintain its lead in the battlefield biotech race through early investment, military-civil fusion, and near-term deployment capability.
- China’s two-decade biotech strategy enables its government to convert R&D into operational tools faster than Western rivals through Military-Civil Fusion (MCF). [source]
- China’s 14th and current Five-Year Plan (2021-25) marks a strategic shift by explicitly prioritising life sciences and biotechnology as core national R&D areas. It commits to increasing biotechnology-related investment by over 10% annually, with the goal of positioning China as the global bio-economy leader by 2035. [source]
- Chinese government-linked firms like BGI likely accelerate military genomics through global DNA collection and unrestricted enhancement research. [source]
- Chinese scientists tested gene-editing techniques for “population improvement,” a possible precursor to super-soldier applications. [source]
- U.S. officials assess that China’s biotech progress may soon surpass the strategic impact of drone warfare. [source]
KJ-2. The United States will likely match China’s biotech momentum without urgent investment and structural reform.
- A recent U.S. National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology report filed to Congress indicates that the U.S. is lagging behind China in battlefield biotech race, and must course correct in three years. The report recommendations include Washington investing USD $15 billion over five years. [source]
- U.S. Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) programs show promise in bio-synthetic manufacturing and trauma care, but face delays moving from lab to battlefield. [source]
- Manufacturing bottlenecks and investor hesitancy are likely to delay large-scale field deployment of military biotech tools. [source]
- The U.S. lacks sufficient industrial capacity, and the high cost of scaling biotech from lab to market consequently deters risk-averse investors. [source]
- The U.S. Department of Defence requested USD$ 1.3 billion for biotechnology in FY2023. However, it did not disclose a total funding figure for FY2024. [source]
KJ-3. Battlefield biotech will likely expand among other military powers in the coming years, but progress will be uneven and limited.
- NATO’s DIANA accelerator supporting dual-use biotech innovation can boost Western cooperation, but its impact will depend on how fast members integrate biotech into doctrine. [source]
- The UK is investing USD $2.5 million per year through 2026 in Engineering Biology R&D, in addition to USD $16.5 million in bio-fuel applications for military aviation, positioning it as an early adopter of synthetic biology in defence. [source]
- North Korea is likely using advanced ‘genetic scissor’ gene editing technology to develop biological weapons according to U.S. reports, further increasing the threat of engineered pathogens and bio-warfare. [source]
- Russia maintains legacy expertise inherited from the Soviet times and long-term ambitions in biotechnology, most recently shown through the improvement of the Sergiev Posad-6 facility. At the same time, public data suggests limited military deployment beyond covert programs. [source]
Statement on analysis
We are confident that China will maintain its lead in battlefield biotechnology due to sustained investment and its military-civil fusion approach. This is supported by explicit state planning as well as reported advances in human enhancement and genomics. We also assess with moderate confidence that the U.S. will remain behind China in the biotech race. Delays in scaling biotech from lab to field and limited industrial capacity constrain its ability to compete. However, federal investment and quick scaling-up could narrow that gap in the next years.
Battlefield biotech adoption among other powers is moving forward but uneven. The UK and Israel have made concrete progress, while NATO coordination mechanisms remain in an early stage. North Korea likely poses the most immediate threat, with covert CRISPR-based bio-weapons research, while Russia’s advancement is hard to measure. Due to limited transparency in some states, especially Russia and North Korea, our assessment relies on indirect indicators and public reporting. Nonetheless, the direction points to biotech as a growing domain of strategic competition.
