The societal consequences also bear consideration. There is a risk of a future world in which a select global few have access to and use human genome editing technology to become stronger, healthier and happier, with the rest of the population – which over a 10-year timeframe is still likely to be the vast majority – unable to afford it. Gene therapy treatment, such as CAR-T therapy (an immunotherapy for cancer) for one person can easily cost half a million dollars or more for the therapy alone. 62 The limited access to such technologies is likely to represent another source of Inequality, exacerbating Societal polarization and political tensions. Inequality and ethical considerations will increasingly also play out among countries. The concentration of biotech innovation among a few dominant biotech companies and countries could result in limited access to everyone else. This could leave low-income economies vulnerable due to limited awareness and expertise. The interconnection between Adverse outcomes of frontier technologies and the Concentration of strategic resources and technologies, observed in the EOS, highlights this risk. The push for rapid progress will also increasingly test ethical boundaries in the domain of brain-computer interfaces. As more people opt for having a brain-computer interface, the time is likely to come over the next decade when demand will arise for the technology from those who are interested in enhancing the performance of their brains, potentially augmenting their own knowledge or productivity with an AI “add on”. At some point in this chain of developments, serious risks will emerge. The digital device to which the individual is connected may be able to “read” the thoughts of the individual, compromising privacy. This could represent a substantive form of control over the individual by whoever is managing the connected device and its online content, whether that controller is an organization or the state. The individual might only be able to reverse the situation by having the implant removed. Actions for today All stakeholders should act today to safeguard human development and ecosystems over the coming decade and beyond, allowing the benefits of biotech to be reaped while limiting the scope for adverse impacts. Specific areas to focus on are: A. Build a global set of norms The pace of change in the sector is so fast that regulators globally struggle to keep up. Rising geopolitical tensions suggest that the political will for a comprehensive cross-border agreement on acceptable uses of biotech is unlikely to be present for some time, posing an ongoing challenge. But ultimately, intergovernmental agreements will be required to keep biotech risks under control. If one or more countries deviate from ethical and technical protocols, there is every chance that malicious or accidental developments in biotech will quickly become a problem for other countries, as well. As part of such a new framework, a global ethical oversight body should be established, consisting of individuals respected worldwide for their humanity and ethical positions, as well as top minds on biotech itself who are able to keep abreast of cutting-edge Research & development and help to direct government efforts in this Risk Governance: Adverse outcomes of frontier technologies FIGURE 2.12 Source World Economic Forum Global Risks Perception Survey 2024-2025.“Which approach(es) do you expect to have the most potential for driving action on risk reduction and preparedness over the next 10 years? Select up to three for each risk.” Risk categories Economic Environmental Geopolitical Societal Technological Adverse outcomes of frontier technologies (quantum, biotech, geoengineering)Share of respondentsApproach a. Financial instruments b. National and local regulationsc. Minilateral treaties and agreements d. Global treaties and agreements e. Development assistancef. Corporate strategiesg. Research & developmenth. Public awareness and education i. Multistakeholder engagement Global Risks Report 2025 58