genetic code. Genome editing technologies, including CRISPR-Cas9, have already been used to treat gene-related diseases such as sickle cell disease and haemophilia, among others. There has also, for example, been recent success in treating an inherited condition that causes vision loss in childhood.47 Gene editing technologies are also used in some areas of research into cancer48 and viruses such as HIV,49 and there is hope that CRISPR-Cas9 could be used to counter antibiotic resistance. Overall, some 2,000 gene therapies are under development worldwide.50 Many of these will become available within a decade, representing previously unthinkable progress. Eventually, gene therapies may become seen as an obvious choice to protect against disease, as vaccinations are today. Significant progress is taking place in another promising field: brain-computer interfaces. The first people suffering from quadriplegia have received brain implants connecting their neural signals to digital devices.51 Further, alternative technology (in several cases with sensors attached to the outside of the head and neck) is being applied to facilitate communication between the brain and artificial limbs, benefiting, for example, war veterans or people with motor neurone disease.52Broadening bioweapons threat Risk perceptions around Adverse outcomes of frontier technologies are likely in part to reflect the fear that militaries and terrorists will continue to pursue new uses of biotech as more potent and stealth forms of weaponry. Attaining and building out biotech leadership is likely to rise up the agendas of leading militaries. Over the next decade, biotech- based weapons could also become increasingly integrated with other (non-biological) weaponry. Cyber espionage and warfare, and Biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and hazards used in combination have far greater, compounding impacts than when used on their own. Advances in AI-driven biotech will make biological weapons easier and cheaper to develop over the next decade.53 The weapons themselves could be made more harmful than previous versions.54 Or, they could be different to those previously built in that they might eventually be focused on specific target groups of people based on genetic characteristics, leaving other people unharmed. Over the next decade there is also a risk that non-state actors could develop such weapons, National risk perceptions: Adverse outcomes of frontier technologies FIGURE 2.10 Source World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey 2024.Executive Opinion Survey rank of national risks from the question “which ﬁve risks are the most likely to pose the biggest threat to your country in the next two years?” Rank 1st10th20th30th34th Global Risks Report 2025 55