The year was 1979, when a Russian lab worker removed a clogged air filter in the ventilation framework without replacing it. He left a note, but his failure to replace the air filter never made it to the log book. As a result, the next shift arrived to work, completely unaware.
Normally this would not be a huge deal, but this particular lab was a biological weapons facility that produced anthrax - - a poisonous, powdery bacteria derived from sheep and cattle that is fatal to humans when inhaled.
What followed was one of the largest documented tragedies. After hours of the powder escaping the lab, and floating around into the sky, 64 people died as a result of anthrax inhalation.
While lab leaks have been a problem for decades, the majority of labs that manipulate DNA have benefitted humanity in the form of gene therapy, cancer treatments, and vaccines. Greater risks arise, however, when scientists decide to dabble in engineering “superbugs,” which are also called “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens” (ePPPs). These superbugs are usually derived from established viruses, like Influenza and Ebola, and then enhanced to be more transmissible and deadly.
On one hand, there are those who argue that ePPPs could help give us an advantage for life-saving treatments, and perhaps even an advantage in the event of another pandemic. However, critics argue that the risks that come with the development process, such as accidental lab leaks and human error, far outweigh the benefits.
Missing vials, accidental needle sticks, and mislabeled shipments containing contaminated samples are common when working in labs, and can often lead to catastrophic consequences.
For those who acknowledge the risk, but still desire to see research move forward, it has been recommended that more efforts be made to minimize human error by developing an international data base of past mistakes that include how the mistakes were resolved. The problem, however, is that this would require a level of transparency that not all agencies are willing to adhere to…but we need to figure this out.
Throughout history, plagues remain a constant threat to humans, and biotechnological advances have only enhanced this threat. While getting all agencies to do the right thing may not be realistic. Doing nothing is not an option either.
Yes, working to lessen global pandemics and catastrophic biological incidences will be like aiming at a moving target - - or worse, it can be like playing “Whack-a-Mole.” However, these efforts can still have a significant impact, and should not be dismissed. Even if you shoot for the moon and miss, you can still hit some stars.
Studies show that the United States government spends approximately $5 billion every year on problems regarding biosecurity. This may sound impressive, but it is small in comparison to the spending that goes towards problems that arise from artificial intelligence, factory farming, and disaster preparedness.
The ultimate solution increasingly appears to rely on awareness. It sounds simple, but awareness remains one of the most powerful weapons against ongoing threats. When individuals become aware, they become “committees of one” dedicated to “each one teaching one” through their gifts, talents, connections, employment, and pursuits.
Below is a list of highly respected and recommended organizations that are believed to have the greatest potential impact for change:
The Center for Health Security (CHS): (Conducts research and development for biosecurity and pandemic preparedness)
The Center for International Security and Cooperation Nuclear Threat Initiative: (U.S. based non-partisan think tank that works to prevent catastrophic attacks caused by nuclear, biological, radiological, chemical and cyber weapons of mass destruction).
Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA): (U.S. based government agency that sponsors research on how to improve biosecurity and pandemic preparedness.
Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense: (Panel that analyzes the United States’ defense capabilities against biological threats, and lobbies for improvements)
Global Catastrophic Risk Institute: (An independent research institute that investigates how to minimize large scale risks and catastrophes)
About the Creator
Keep reading
More stories from Savannah Taylor and writers in Earth and other communities.
Stanislav Kondrashov on the Future of Work in the Age of the Energy Transition
As the world steadily moves away from fossil fuels, the shift toward sustainable energy is reshaping not only infrastructure but the very fabric of the global workforce. According to industry analyst and sustainability advocate Stanislav Kondrashov, the years ahead will bring seismic changes to employment—disrupting traditional sectors while giving rise to a new class of critical roles.
By Stanislav Kondrashov6 days ago in Earth
Britain’s PM Calls Trump on Greenland: Defending Sovereignty in a Shifting Arctic
When you think of New Year’s conversations between world leaders, Greenland probably isn’t the first thing that comes to mind. Yet on January 7, 2026, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and former U.S. President Donald Trump discussed the icy island over a phone call — and it made headlines worldwide. Why? Because Greenland, a massive, ice-covered territory in the Arctic, is suddenly at the center of global geopolitics, and Britain is making sure its voice is heard. Greenland Isn’t Just Ice At first glance, Greenland seems remote and quiet — a land of snow, glaciers, and polar bears. But this island is strategically critical. It sits between North America and Europe, holds valuable natural resources, and commands control over emerging Arctic shipping routes as ice melts due to climate change. In recent years, Greenland has captured the attention of global powers, especially the United States. Trump has repeatedly suggested that the island is crucial to U.S. national security and even hinted at the possibility of acquiring it. These ideas, though unlikely, raised eyebrows in Europe and among NATO allies. For Denmark, Greenland’s governing country, and its residents, this rhetoric was a reminder that sovereignty matters — and outsiders shouldn’t dictate their future. Starmer’s Clear Message During the phone call, Starmer made Britain’s position unmistakable: Greenland’s future must be decided by its people and Denmark, not by external powers. This wasn’t just diplomacy for the sake of headlines. It’s about principles that Britain has long defended: respect for sovereignty, international law, and the rules-based global order. Starmer’s message sends a signal not only to Trump but also to other countries that might think about exerting undue influence over smaller, strategic territories. The call also touched on other global concerns, including NATO security matters, Arctic maritime operations, and broader geopolitical tensions. But it’s Greenland that grabbed the spotlight — because it’s a flashpoint for sovereignty, alliance dynamics, and Arctic strategy. Why the UK Cares You might wonder: why is Britain involved in a discussion about Greenland? After all, it’s part of Denmark. The answer lies in NATO and European security. Greenland is strategically vital for the alliance. Any unilateral action by the U.S. to control or influence Greenland could threaten NATO cohesion. Britain, as a leading NATO member, has a stake in ensuring that all alliance decisions respect sovereignty and the rules of international cooperation. In other words, Britain isn’t stepping into Greenland’s affairs to take control — it’s defending the principle that territorial decisions should belong to the rightful authorities, in this case, Denmark and Greenland’s residents. Alliances and Principles Starmer’s call also highlights a delicate balancing act. The UK maintains a close relationship with the U.S., but that doesn’t mean it agrees with every idea, especially when sovereignty is at stake. This is the reality of modern diplomacy: even trusted allies can have differences of opinion, and leaders must navigate these differences carefully. Starmer’s message to Trump reflects a wider approach — maintain strong alliances while standing firm on core values. Some politicians have acknowledged that disagreements are normal and even healthy in long-standing partnerships. The key is open communication and respect for international norms, which Starmer aimed to demonstrate during the call. Greenland as a Symbol Beyond geopolitics, Greenland has become a symbol of a new era in global relations. Arctic resources, strategic positions, and climate change are making previously quiet regions hotspots for diplomacy. Greenland reminds the world that territory, sovereignty, and self-determination are still central issues, even in the 21st century. For Britain, standing with Denmark and affirming Greenland’s autonomy sends a clear message: the UK supports international law and the idea that small regions should not be pawns in great-power games. What This Means Going Forward So what can we expect after this phone call? Greenland remains firmly under Danish control, with its future in the hands of its residents. NATO cohesion is reinforced, as European leaders see Britain advocating for rules-based governance. The Arctic region continues to be a strategic focal point, with countries carefully watching each other’s moves. In short, Starmer’s call is a reminder that even in a world of powerful nations, diplomacy, respect, and legal principles still matter. Takeaways Sovereignty Matters: Greenland’s future is a matter for its people, not outside powers. Allies Can Disagree: Britain’s defense of principles shows that disagreements with allies don’t have to break partnerships. Strategic Regions Are Hotspots: Arctic regions like Greenland are increasingly important in global security, economics, and diplomacy. Principles Over Power: Upholding international law is as critical as maintaining military or economic influence. Greenland may be far from the streets of London or Washington, but the stakes are high. Starmer’s phone call with Trump demonstrates that the UK is ready to defend sovereignty, international norms, and alliance cohesion, even when the conversation turns icy.
By Muhammad Hassan4 days ago in Earth
A Failed Artist, A Disillusioned Poet, An Underpaid Game Show Host
I took my son and niece to Gori, a small town in Georgia where Joseph Stalin was born. They talked me into visiting the Stalin's Museum, the largest in the post-Soviet space. I had resisted going there because I just can't stand the monster and know enough about him, or so I thought.
By Lana V Lynx7 days ago in FYI
Comments (1)
Nice story you can also read the one I have prepared for you