Artificial intelligence is making it easier to design dangerous biological materials, yet federal regulators are struggling to catch up with the technology. A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report highlights how AI tools designed for legitimate purposes like drug discovery could be repurposed to create biological and chemical threats, while no comprehensive federal AI regulation has been enacted to address the risk.

How Is AI Actually Being Used in Biology Right Now?

The intersection of AI and biotechnology is not hypothetical. AI systems are already being deployed to design DNA sequences, characterize proteins, discover new drugs, and power autonomous laboratories that can run experiments with minimal human oversight. The concern is straightforward: researchers worry that AI could be misused to produce biological and chemical compounds of concern, potentially democratizing access to knowledge that historically required specialized expertise and years of training.

However, skepticism tempers some of the alarm. Nobel Prize-winning chemist Jennifer Doudna noted in a June 2026 interview that biology remains complex and innovation is still primarily in the domain of human beings, with chatbots not yet generating truly novel biological ideas. She emphasized that any AI-generated biological designs would still need to be physically synthesized and tested to determine whether they have practical value.

What Has the Government Actually Done to Address This?

The Biden administration moved first with Executive Order 14292 in May 2025, titled "Improving the Safety and Security of Biological Research." The order directed the Office of Science and Technology Policy to revise or replace two key policies within strict timeframes: the 2024 United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential within 120 days, and the 2024 Framework for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening within 90 days.

As of July 2026, the Congressional Research Service has not been able to confirm whether those revisions were completed. Most notably, the 2024 Framework for Nucleic Acid Synthesis Screening had not been revised or replaced despite the 90-day deadline having passed. This gap illustrates the challenge regulators face in keeping pace with rapidly evolving technology.

How Are Tech Companies and Industry Stepping In?

Industry has moved faster than government in developing safeguards. In May 2026, OpenAI published a governance framework specifically addressing biosecurity risks and ran competitions offering up to $50,000 for researchers who could identify ways to bypass ChatGPT's biosafety protections. Anthropic released a proposed policy framework in June 2026 recommending that frontier AI developers test models for catastrophic risks, publish their findings, and be accountable to a government agency.

A coalition of life sciences researchers, AI companies, and biotechnology developers issued an open letter in June 2026 calling on Congress to make screening of synthetic nucleic acid orders mandatory, placing responsibility on DNA synthesis companies to prevent misuse.

Steps Congress Is Taking to Close the Regulatory Gap

• Engineering Biology Readiness Act (S. 4363): Requires the next biennial update of the biodefense threat assessment to include analysis of engineering biology risks and recommendations to modernize biosafety, biosecurity, and biodefense authorities.
• Future of Artificial Intelligence Innovation Act of 2026 (S. 3952): Establishes standards, metrics, and evaluation tools for AI research and development and requires examination of safeguards against unintended use of AI for developing chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive threats.
• Collective Legislative Approach: The CRS report notes that nine pieces of legislation mentioned, individually and collectively, could support the advancements of AI and biology while also providing some safeguards against misuse.

"Biology is complex and innovation is still in the domain of human beings, with chatbots not yet coming up with brand-new ideas," said Jennifer Doudna, Nobel Prize-winning chemist.

Jennifer Doudna, Nobel Prize-winning chemist

The core challenge remains: no federal legislation establishing broad regulatory authorities for AI development and use has been enacted. While industry self-governance frameworks are emerging and Congress is watching closely, the regulatory landscape remains fragmented. The CRS report underscores that the convergence of dual-use technologies, where tools designed for beneficial purposes can be repurposed for harm, requires coordinated action across government, industry, and the scientific community to prevent biosecurity risks from outpacing oversight.

" }