The (Life) Science of War

Consider narcotics. Shortly after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the New York Times reported that Osama bin Laden had funded an effort to develop a genetically modified "super heroin." Opium is Afghanistan's primary cash crop and by far its most valuable commodity. The problem, from a narcoterrorist's cash-flow point of view, has been that there are simply not enough customers. In theory, genetically modified poppy plants could lead to the development of an instantly addictive and wildly potent heroin product that could be introduced to a much broader market segment. Double or triple the number of junkies, and narcoterrorism becomes seriously destabilizing.

As it turns out, bin Laden decided to abandon the super-heroin project and return to a more conventional means of terror. But U.S. intelligence knows that the cartels that control the drug trade in Central and South America are pressing forward with similar experimentation. And they have the means: Those cartels run a $25 billion to $30 billion cash-flow business. More important, they have the motive: Designer drugs are sharply cutting into their market share, particularly among young people.

Facing all these threats -- from genetically targeted pathogens to genetically modified narcotics to genetically enhanced designer drugs -- the U.S. government has no choice but to underwrite a massive investment in the genomics and proteomics sectors. The problem with venture capital is that it's impatient and ruthless when expected revenue is not forthcoming. Any large- or small-scale effort to understand genomics and proteomics (the hardware and software of all living things) will inevitably fail before it succeeds. Underwriting the cost of failure, again and again, is not what venture funds are about. The task, then, falls to the government.

The good news is that the United States and Britain have vibrant genomics and proteomics sectors. Much of this work is already funded by government groups (such as the NIH in the United States) and charitable organizations (such as the Wellcome Trust in Britain). Some of it is underwritten by investors who are betting that the code of life will someday be more valuable than computer code. And important companies -- such as Compaq, DuPont, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Merck, and Novartis -- are making huge bets by investing in genomics or proteomics and by organizing themselves accordingly. The IBM Life Sciences division is viewed internally as the key to the company's future growth. One strong argument in favor of an HP-Compaq merger has been that it would combine the proteomic computational capabilities of the two companies. Novartis is betting everything on genomics.

This sea change that has come since September 11 -- and the very real possibility that more terrible events lie ahead -- will be the engine of economic growth for some time. The urgency of the task dictates that neither expense nor effort be spared. Either we master life science or we risk losing our lives.

John Ellis (jellis@fastcompany.com) is a writer and consultant based in New York.