The event was moderated by FSI director Colin Kahl, and featured FSI scholars with a cross-section of expertise: Drew Endy, FSI senior fellow (by courtesy) and associate professor in bioengineering at Stanford’s School of Engineering; Andrew Grotto, a research scholar at FSI’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) and director of the Program on Geopolitics, Technology, and Governance (GTG); Jeff Hancock, senior fellow and director of FSI’s Tech Impact and Policy Center; and Jennifer Pan, FSI senior fellow and the Sir Robert Ho Tung Professor of Chinese Studies.

The scholars discussed four key areas to consider when it comes to the benefits, risks, and political implications of emerging technologies.

The Resurgence of Biotechnology

Humans have a long history with biotechnology, from fermentation to stem cell research. Now, after the past few decades in which industries were reshaped by digital technology, we’re seeing a potential biotech resurgence, explained Drew Endy, in which synthetic DNA chemistry allows scientists to build new DNA without using pre-existing molecules.

“I’m hopelessly biased,” said Endy. “But it's impossible for me to overstate the significance of being able to manufacture DNA from scratch.”

If the technology continues on its current trajectory, it could allow for a more accessible, affordable way to make useful items like computer chips or better enzymes, but it also carries the risk of offering a bad actor an easier path toward the creation of harmful toxins or pathogens.

Reflecting on the contrast between biotechnology and artificial intelligence, Colin Kahl observed, “We're reaching this moment where we're increasingly turning living organisms into zeros and ones, and we're turning zeros and ones into living organisms.”

Screens and Mental Health

Amid concerns about the amount of time children and teens are spending on screens and its impact on mental health, Australia recently passed the Social Media Minimum Age Act, which forbids social media companies to allow those under 16 from accessing their platforms.

According to Jeff Hancock, whose Tech Impact and Policy Center has been working alongside the Australian government to assess the ban’s effect, approximately 35% of young Australians have stopped using social media. But they’re not suddenly playing cricket with their friends. Many are simply swapping it out for ChatGPT or some other screen-based platform.

In California, legislation on a social media ban is being considered, which could influence other states. Issues involving social media and AI as they relate to children is one of today’s rare bipartisan issues.  

Of course, large language models can be persuasive and dangerous for adults, too. Hancock believes we should be “very concerned” about how AI will shape our perceptions of life, especially given the tendency of users to spend more time on social media when the algorithm feeds them negative content, and the economic incentives for platforms to keep users engaged.

The U.S.-China Decathalon

When it comes to the so-called AI “race” between the United States and China, Andrew Grotto prefers to compare it to a decathlon, since “AI competition is a multi-dimensional contest,” he explained. At the moment, both countries are vying to be the first to unlock artificial general intelligence (AGI), namely AI that matches or exceeds human intellectual capabilities.

When it comes to the adoption of America’s AI stack, “China is not only a formidable competitor on price, but increasingly quality,” Grotto stated. The U.S. is banking on other countries to view its values as an advantage. However, he said, we’re at a divisive moment in American foreign policy where it’s not a given that other countries will be keen to align with the U.S..

There are key differences between the U.S. and China in how they approach AI. While U.S. companies with massive market caps such as Google, Microsoft, and Amazon are focused mostly on serving wealthy countries with large populations, China is more willing to strategically invest in regions that don’t meet such criteria, like the Global South. It remains to be seen how the U.S. will address this gap, and how much it will attempt to reign in private businesses.

China does not share U.S. concerns on privacy and security risks. According to Jennifer Pan, the Chinese view on generative AI is “overwhelmingly positive. It's about the possibilities of this new technology in improving people's lives and the economy,” she said. Pan notes that “the goal of the Chinese Communist Party is to survive in power,” and so their regulations revolve mostly around political control.

Pan does note that, with the spread of digital technologies, propaganda has become more challenging for the Chinese Communist Party, as they now must compete with independent voices such as influencers for attention.  

The Bioweapons Risk

At the UN General Assembly in 2025, President Donald Trump called upon all nations to “end the development of bioweapons once and for all.”

Endy adds that nation states should also agree to a duty to notify each other in the event of an outbreak that could contribute to a pandemic. The risk of AI contributing to biological risk should not be taken lightly. Computational methods could potentially be used by bad actors to design novel toxins and pathogens that are undetectable and for which we don't have medical countermeasures or vaccines.

“People who wanted to cause harm in the past would see how difficult it is to utilize biology and be put off and pick up an automatic weapon instead,” Endy said. “But now if something like Claude makes it easier for them to use biotechnology, they could misuse biology.”

But Endy’s bigger concern is nation state bioweapons. The rhetoric around AI could be destabilizing, leading to one country deciding that if another country has a bioweapons program, they should follow suit.

“This is the historical pattern that played out 100 years ago that led to the militarization of biology leading into World War II,” Endy noted. “Nothing good came of that.”

Ideally, suggested Kahl, biology and AI would be used together for positive purposes, to create new vaccines and identify patient zeros earlier. Such positive uses of technology could help uplift humanity and propel us toward a brighter future.

What to Expect Next

“The World Changing Technology in 2026” panel discussion was the second event in FSI’s new quarterly series examining the state of the world. (Read a summary of the first event here.) The next discussion will take place in November 2026 and will examine the national and geopolitical ramifications of the U.S. mid-term elections. To join FSI at upcoming events on the latest developments in international affairs, register for invitations on the institute’s website.

Mak, who is co-director of Stanford Frontier Technology Lab and an investor in national security startups at Brave Capital, explains the importance of fostering these kinds of connections and bringing students into the conversation.

“The future of national security depends on collaboration, and this seminar is our effort to help forge those connections,” she says. “It’s been exciting to watch it evolve—and continue to grow—into a platform that bridges communities that rarely share the same room: students, technologists, policymakers, investors, and public-sector innovators.”

In its early years, the series featured government leaders like former Secretary of Defense Bill Perry, founders of pioneering companies in satellite imagery and robotics, and leaders from organizations such as the Department of Energy’s ARPA-E. More recently, CEOs like Hidden Level's Jeff Cole, whose company develops stealth and radar technology, and Baiju Bhatt of Aetherflux, a space solar power venture, have joined the discussion series.

Strengthening this flow of expertise between government and innovation hubs like Silicon Valley is key to the future and success of both sectors, and the students of today will be the leaders and policymakers of tomorrow driving those ventures, observes Eric Volmar, the teaching lead at the Gordian Knot Center.

"In modern entrepreneurship, every founder needs to be thinking about the policy aspects of their technologies. In modern government, every leader needs to be thinking about how emerging technologies affect national priorities,” says Volmer. “Tech and policy are fusing together, and our whole purpose is to prepare students for this new era.”

By giving students the opportunity to hear the personal accounts of innovators who have paved the way in addressing national issues and societal challenges through entrepreneurship, the co-leaders of “Silicon Valley & The U.S. Government” hope to encourage students to do the same.

“Students are looking to be inspired—to be mission-driven. Service to the country is one of those missions. Hearing how others have answered the call is what these seminars are all about," says Steve Blank, a lecturer and founding member of the Gordian Knot Center.

“Silicon Valley & The U.S. Government” meets once per week each fall and spring quarter. It can be found in the Stanford Courses catalogue as CEE 252, and is cross-listed for students in the Ford Dorsey Master’s in International Policy program as INTLPOL 300V. Recent sessions of the course are posted online every two weeks.