The title is very click-baity (CRISPR is just used as an example in the letter and appears 3 times on 19 pages), but the points raised are valid. It's still no

The title is very click-baity (CRISPR is just used as an example in the letter and appears 3 times on 19 pages), but the points raised are valid. It's still not easy to create your own bioweapons using these novel technologies and the field is moving rapidly, so it would be in the best interest of the US and other countries to start having a national biodefense strategy that thinks 'bigger' than the CDC, includes international collaboration on biodefense responses, research, intelligence community input (bioterrorism), disease surveillance etc. I assume this letter also happened due to the mediocre reaction of the US to Zika defense funding, which such an agency would be better suited to defend against. In fact I think bioterrorism is 'used' here to appeal to the military hawks, the threat of novel 'natural' diseases is still higher IMHO. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_biodefense_letter_report_final.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/os...