NATO convened its inaugural Biotechnology Conference in Brussels on Tuesday, bringing together ministers, military planners, scientists and private-sector executives to address the strategic implications of rapid advances in the life sciences. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte described the meeting as “a meaningful step” toward deeper cooperation between governments, academia and industry on defence-related biotechnology, and urged allies to treat the field as an urgent security priority.

Biotechnology, Rutte said, is now “high on the list” of technologies critical to NATO’s future security, and he framed the alliance’s challenge in starkly practical terms: “our security hinges on our ability to innovate and integrate new technologies.” He warned that maintaining a technological lead will require coordinated investment and faster pathways to turn laboratory advances into operational capabilities. “To stay safe, we don’t just need the tanks and the jets, and the ships, and the drones and the ammunition,” Rutte added, urging an expanded conception of defence that includes biological research, diagnostics, and human performance technologies.

Delegates discussed a portfolio of measures already under way inside the alliance. NATO’s Biotechnology and Human Enhancement Strategy, adopted in 2024, sets a policy frame for research, oversight and ethical reflection; the Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) has provided practical backing for private innovation, funding 28 biotechnology companies in the past year. Proponents say those moves help build resilience by diversifying supply chains, accelerating prototype development, and strengthening ties between defence establishments and civilian research ecosystems.

The conference also reflected a sharpening geopolitical anxiety: allied officials and Western commentators have warned that China and Russia are investing heavily in biotech capabilities that could confer strategic advantages. While the conference itself did not produce binding measures, the emphasis was clearly on not ceding ground to strategic competitors and on aligning regulatory, industrial and military levers to maintain an edge.

That imperative raises immediate legal and ethical questions. Biotechnology is inherently dual-use; advances in gene editing, synthetic biology and human enhancement can yield both medical benefits and potential military applications. NATO members must navigate international law, including the Biological Weapons Convention, at the same time as they develop norms for data sharing, export controls and transparency. Several participants stressed the need to harmonize national regulations so that cooperative projects do not run afoul of differing consent, privacy and safety regimes across allied states.

Cultural and diplomatic nuance featured prominently in closed-door sessions, where allies explored how to sustain collaboration with research communities in countries with different governance models. Engaging global partners without undermining human rights or amplifying security risks will be a delicate balancing act for Western capitals.

As NATO moves from conference rhetoric to policy implementation, the alliance will face competing pressures: the urgency of technological competition, the obligations of international law, and the moral imperative to ensure that life-science innovation serves human security rather than amplifies new risks. The Brussels gathering marked an opening phase of that work, signaling both the political will to act and the complexity of the path ahead.