Scientists Saved Us From Catastrophic Risk Before

AI and Biotechnology Risks Demand Science Diplomacy

!Foreign Policy

Foreign Policy

Get analysis and alerts more quickly in the mobile app.

Install

Back to Foreign Policy Magazine home page

* Latest
* Regions
+ Asia & the Pacific
+ China
+ Middle East & Africa
+ Americas
+ Europe
* Newsletters
Editors’ Picks
Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day
!World Brief Icon
World Brief
Your guide to the most important world stories of the day
!China Brief Icon
China Brief
The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week
Situation Report
Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy
FP Weekend
A curation of our best book reviews, deep dives, and other reads
!Africa Brief Icon
Africa Brief
Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent
!South Asia Brief Icon
South Asia Brief
Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors
The Reading List
Curated guides on geopolitics and current affairs
FP Bookshelf
A monthly guide to FP’s book reviews, excerpts, and reading recommendations
!Latin America Brief Icon
Latin America Brief
One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture
!Southeast Asia Brief Icon
Southeast Asia Brief
A weekly dispatch with news from the region’s 11 countries
The New Geopolitics
A five-part masterclass in IR theory with Harvard Professor Stephen M. Walt
View All Newsletters

* FP Live

* Latest
* Trending:
* Germany elections
* Venezuela oil deal

Search this website

* Preferences
* My FP Feed
* Saved Articles
* Newsletters
* Magazine Archive
* Subscription Settings
* FAQs
* Log Out

Sign In

Sign In

Partner with FP at UNGA81 Partner with FP at UNGA81

Subscribe SubscribePartner with FP at UNGA81 Partner with FP at UNGA81

Argument:

Scientists Saved Us From Catastrophic Risk Before

*
*
* Facebook
* Bluesky
* X
* LinkedIn
* WhatsApp
* Reddit

Save

1. Create an FP account to save articles to read later.
Sign Up
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

PDF

1. **Downloadable PDFs** are a benefit of an FP subscription.
Subscribe Now
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

Gift

*
*
* WhatsApp

1. Gifting articles is a subscriber benefit.
Subscribe Now
ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

2. This article is an Insider exclusive.
Contact us at [email protected] to learn about upgrade options, unlocking the ability to gift this article.

Argument

Scientists Saved Us From Catastrophic Risk Before

Track-two science diplomacy can provide vital safeguards on AI.

September 10, 2026, 8:00 AM

By **Sophie Berman**, a researcher focusing on the role of ethics in war and peacemaking, and **Yelena Biberman**, an associate professor of political science at Skidmore College, an Andrew W. Marshall Foundation fellow, and an affiliate of Harvard University’s Davis Center.

!A black and white photograph of British minister for Education and Science, Quintin Hogg, as he delivers opening remarks at the tenth International Pugwash Conference at the Russell Hotel, London on Sept. 4 1962.

*A black and white photograph of British minister for Education and Science, Quintin Hogg, as he delivers opening remarks at the tenth International Pugwash Conference at the Russell Hotel, London on Sept. 4 1962.*

Quintin Hogg, Britain's minister for education and science, delivers opening remarks at the 10th Pugwash conference at the Russell Hotel in London on Sept. 4 1962. Getty Images/Daily Express

*
*
*
*

In 1957, at the height of the Cold War nuclear arms race, 22 scientists from 10 countries gathered in the small Canadian fishing village of Pugwash. Many were leading architects of the technologies underpinning their governments’ national security programs, including several who had contributed to the development of the world’s first atomic weapons under the Manhattan Project. Now, they were grappling with the sense that they had lost control over the technologies they had helped create.

The founders of the Pugwash conference heeded calls from philosopher Bertrand Russell and physicist Albert Einstein, two of the 20th century’s most prominent intellectuals, to “appraise the perils” arising from the development of weapons of mass destruction. Over the course of the next seven decades, the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs convened thousands of scientists and experts from around the world in more than 400 symposia and workshops. The movement received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995.

In 1957, at the height of the Cold War nuclear arms race, 22 scientists from 10 countries gathered in the small Canadian fishing village of Pugwash. Many were leading architects of the technologies underpinning their governments’ national security programs, including several who had contributed to the development of the world’s first atomic weapons under the Manhattan Project. Now, they were grappling with the sense that they had lost control over the technologies they had helped create.

The founders of the Pugwash conference heeded calls from philosopher Bertrand Russell and physicist Albert Einstein, two of the 20th century’s most prominent intellectuals, to “appraise the perils” arising from the development of weapons of mass destruction. Over the course of the next seven decades, the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs convened thousands of scientists and experts from around the world in more than 400 symposia and workshops. The movement received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995.

In 2026, the convergence of artificial intelligence and biotechnology poses a similar existential threat—and demands a similar response. In June, AI industry leaders warned that AI could erode the knowledge barriers that have historically kept biological warfare at bay and urged U.S. lawmakers to establish stronger safeguards for synthetic DNA and RNA.

!A photograph of Joseph Rotblat, the founder of the Pugwash movement, with both hands up upon hearing that he was to be awarded the winner of the Nobel 1995 Peace Prize.

*A photograph of Joseph Rotblat, the founder of the Pugwash movement, with both hands up upon hearing that he was to be awarded the winner of the Nobel 1995 Peace Prize.*

Joseph Rotblat, the founder of the Pugwash movement, upon hearing that he was to be awarded the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize.

Biosecurity, however, cannot be managed through national action alone. It requires international cooperation, which has been weakened in recent years by stalled and defunded multilateral efforts. As geopolitical rivalry erodes prospects for global cooperation, alternative methods of diplomacy must begin at the source: scientists themselves.

Through the Pugwash movement, scientists developed a technical foundation for nuclear risk reduction and arms control that could be implemented when political conditions permitted, building the knowledge and relationships that made later nuclear arms control agreements possible.

As modern technological change outpaces governance, track-two scientific engagement can similarly provide a vital safeguard against catastrophic risks. The Pugwash model offers enduring lessons for governing the AI-biotechnology nexus across geopolitical divides—but the global accessibility of the modern threat demands an even more ambitious response.

---

The debate over the regulation of AI and biotechnology is unfolding amid intensifying strategic competition between China and the United States. Chinese President Xi Jinping seemed to reflect a desire for cooperation at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference in July when he said AI development should be a “symphony of global cooperation.” But Xi also criticized U.S. technology restrictions while advancing China’s own Digital Silk Road agenda, ultimately promoting a more active role for Beijing in shaping global AI governance. The United States has also prioritized its own technological leadership: According to a letter written by the State Department and seen by the *New York Times*, Washington is prep