Table 2.
A summary of the crime types that emerged.
| Study method | Study design (speculative, experimental, “currently occurring in the wild”) | Authors, year | Exploit (13 total) | Domain (bio-related, cyber-related, drug-related) | Crime type | Estimated timescale | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Penetration testing | Experimental | Ayday et al. (2013) | 1 | Privacy breaches of genomic data within a clinical setting | Cybercrime | Bio-discrimination | Current* |
| 2-7 | Experimental | Backes et al. (2016) | 2 | Privacy breaches through the identification and matching of Epigenetic data in both a clinical setting and for the biomedical research community | Cybercrime | Bio-discrimination | |
| 2-7 | Experimental | Ney et al. (2017) | 3 | Sequencing physical DNA malware that compromises the computer that processes it | Biocrime | Bio-malware | |
| 2-7 | Experimental | Faezi et al. (2019) | 4 | Confidentiality breach and oligonucleotide sequence theft through an acoustic side channel attack | Cybercrime | “Cyber-biocrime” | |
| 2-7 | Experimental | Franzosa et al. (2015) | 5 | Privacy breach of human microbiome data within a research setting | Cybercrime | Bio-discrimination | |
| 2-7 | Experimental | Ney et al. (2018) | 6 | Tampering with DNA sequencing machines to modify sequencing results (enabling “Targeted mis-genotyping”) | Biocrime | “Cyber-biocrime” | |
| 1-8 Expert workshop | Speculative | Fears and ter Meulen (2018) | 7 | Exploitation of genome editing technology such as CRISPR to engineer the human microbiome, immune system or to make illegal changes to the inherited genome. | Biocrime | Illegal gene editing and “neuro-hacking” | Long-term |
| 2-8 | Speculative | Kirkpatrick et al. (2018) | – | Exploitation of genome editing technology such as CRISPR to engineer the human microbiome, immune system or to make illegal changes to the inherited genome. | Biocrime | Biohacking, illegal gene editing and “neuro-hacking” | Not discussed |
| 1-8 Horizon scanning and delphi | Speculative | Hauptman and Sharan (2013) | 8 | Exploitation of synthetic biology technologies. For example, the DNA of human individuals is misused for extortion | Cybercrime | “Genetic blackmail” | 2016–2025 |
| 1-8 Horizon scanning and delphi and scenario building | Speculative | Wintle et al. (2017) | – | Exploitation of synthetic biology technologies to engineer microorganisms for illegal purposes (e.g., engineer bacteria to cause infection). | Biocrime | “Cyber-biocrime,” DIY drugs, biohacking, illegal gene editing and “Genetic blackmail” | 5–10 years |
| 1-8 Scenario building | Speculative | Bress (2017) | 9 | Illegal use and manufacturing of drugs using emerging technology | Drug-related | DIY drug manufacturing and biohacking | 2030 |
| 1-8 Author speculation | Speculative | Dieuliis and Giordano (2017) | 10 | Exploitation of the microbiome to gain indirect control of the brain. | Biocrime | “Neuro-hacking” | Not discussed |
| 2-8 | Ali et al. (2016) | 11 | Hacking cyberinfrastructure (e.g., supply chain) of Digital Microfluidic Biochips (DMFB) to compromise assay outcomes, leak sensitive information, or damage the DMFB making it unusable. | Cybercrime | “Cyber-biocrime” | <5 years * | |
| Literature review | Speculative | Peccoud et al. (2018) | 12 | Hacking cyberinfrastructure of integrated biotechnology workflows (e.g., biomanufacturing processes) to compromise operations and/or produce nefarious products. | Cybercrime | “Cyber-biocrime” | Current* |
| 2-7 | Speculative | Qu (2019) | 13 | Exploitation of genomic information through data breaches to engage in blackmail and/or privacy breaches. | Cybercrime | Bio-discrimination | |
Content analysis of the extracted data (Supplementary Table 1) from the 15 reviewed studies (Figure 1) is summarized and ordered according to study design, with experimental study designs at the top. Studies are labeled by study design to signify articles that are either speculative, experimental, or “currently occurring in the wild.” Articles with experimental designs demonstrate feasibility of the method used to commit the exploit whilst speculative articles discussed a potential exploit without a proof of concept. Articles that discussed reports of actual misuse in the real-world are “currently occurring in the wild,” Thirteen exploits were extracted from the 15 reviewed studies and divided into 3 domains: bio-related, cyber-related, and drug-related crime. The total 13 exploits were also grouped to generate the overarching crime types (emerging crime opportunities facilitated by the biotechnologies) (Figure 5). Where available, the estimated timescale predicted by the authors or participants of a study is provided.
= timescale not explicitly stated by the authors of the paper but implied (by demonstrating a proof-of-concept through penetration testing, for example) and therefore interpreted/estimated by the researcher.