Russia considers synthetic biology to be one of the central future technologies for healthcare, agriculture, industrial production and the desired technological sovereignty. In long-term government programs until 2030 and beyond, the discipline is specifically promoted – but at the same time classified as a potential source of new biological threats. The Presidential Decree on Chemical and Biological Safety until 2025 and the Federal Research Program for Genetic Technologies 2019–2027 (with extension perspectives) explicitly define synthetic biology as a dual-use technology: an opportunity for the bioeconomy, but also a risk for the creation of new pathogens. Experts see an area of tension between scientific progress and strict state monitoring. While concrete laboratory breakthroughs are hardly made public in the Western public, political control, legal adaptations and biosecurity are at the forefront of Russia’s strategy.

Synthetic biology – often referred to as “engineering biology” – enables the targeted construction of biological systems with new properties. In contrast to classical genetic engineering, which modifies existing genes, this is about the design of artificial genomes, metabolic pathways and even completely synthetic organisms. Techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing, DNA synthesis and metabolic engineering make it possible to program microorganisms to produce drugs, biofuels or environmentally friendly materials. Worldwide, the field has developed explosively since the 2000s; Russia is deliberately positioning itself as an independent actor that is building its own capacities despite sanctions and geopolitical isolation.

Historically, Russian research ties in with the Soviet biotechnology tradition. In the USSR, there were not only civilian programs, but also the notorious Biopreparate network, which conducted offensive bioweapons research. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, much was diverted to civilian channels, but the legacy of high-security laboratories such as the Vector Institute in Novosibirsk or the Sergiev-Possad complex remains present. Today, Moscow emphasizes only defensive and civilian goals. Nevertheless, Western observers – including US authorities – accuse Russia of conducting dual-use research that could potentially be used militarily. Russia regularly rejects such accusations and refers to compliance with the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).

Policies and Government Programs: From BIO-2020 to the National Bioeconomy

As early as 2012, Russia launched a broad-based offensive to develop biotechnology with the BIO 2020 programme. With a budget of around $18 million (at the time), eight focus areas were funded, including biopharmaceuticals, biomedicine, and industrial biotechnology. This laid the foundation for today’s activities. This was followed in 2018 by Presidential Decree No. 680 on the Development of Genetic Technologies, which resulted in the comprehensive “Federal Research Programme for Genetic Technologies 2019–2027” in 2019. The program, coordinated by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, aims at the “accelerated development of genetic technologies, including genome editing.” It is intended to create a scientific and technological basis for medicine, agriculture and industry and at the same time strengthen the system for preventing biological emergencies and monitoring. The financial volume amounts to about 127 billion rubles – a considerable amount in times of economic challenges.

A key document is Presidential Decree No. 97 of March 11, 2019 “Foundations of the State Policy of the Russian Federation to Ensure Chemical and Biological Safety until 2025 and Beyond”. In it, synthetic biology is explicitly named as a source of biological opportunities, but also as a potential threat. The document calls for a national monitoring system for developments in synthetic biology, especially with regard to the “project planning and creation of pathogens”. In 2019, a monitoring centre was also set up to collect information on biological threats, including those from the field of synthetic biology.

In December 2025, the government approved the national project “Technological Support for the Bioeconomy”. President Vladimir Putin emphasized the strategic importance at the plenary session of the Forum for Future Technologies in February 2026 under the motto “Bioeconomy for Humanity”: “The main goal is to secure sovereignty in critical areas and to achieve leadership positions in some areas.” Putin called on the government to develop a long-term national strategy for the bioeconomy by the middle of the 21st century. The project covers agro-industry, forestry, medicine and industrial applications. It is intended to use Russia’s “unique natural potential” and reduce dependencies on foreign technologies – a clear signal in times of Western sanctions.

As part of the “Priority 2030” program of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, universities receive targeted funding. Projects such as those of the Kazan Federal University or the Novosibirsk State University (NSU) integrate synthetic biology into teaching and research. For example, the NSU maintains a separate department for synthetic biology with a focus on genome editing for disease models and therapeutics.

Russia’s key policy instruments for controlling synthetic biology

Action / Document	Content / Objective	Period / Status
Presidential Decree No. 97 on chem./biol. Security	Priorities, tasks, monitoring of biological threats incl. SynBio	Until 2025 and beyond (2019)
Federal Research Programme on Genetic Technologies	Design of artificial genomes, new biosynthetic pathways, basis for medicine, agriculture, industry	2019–2027 (with extension)
National Bioeconomy Project	Sovereignty in Bioeconomy, Leadership in Selected Areas	Approved Dec. 2025, ongoing
Monitoring Center (2019)	Collection of information on biothreats, including synthetic biology	Active since 2019
Priority 2030 Program	University funding, including SynBio to NSU, KFU	By 2030

Legal regulation and biosecurity: Closing gaps in pathogens

Russian lawyers, including the authors of the study “Development of Legal Regulation of Synthetic Biology” (Nechaeva, Nekoteneva, Kubyshkin, 2025), analyse international and national regulations. They state that global control mechanisms are lagging behind rapid technological development. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Cartagena Protocol on Biodiversity provide a framework, but are not sufficient for the specific risks of synthetic biology.

Russian policy explicitly classifies the “projection and creation of pathogens with the help of synthetic biology” as a central biological threat. Nechaeva et al. propose to tighten the law especially where synthetic biology could be used to create new pathogens and other biosecurity threats. Existing standards should be sufficient for peaceful applications in research, biotechnology and the bioeconomy – such as laws on scientific research, genetic engineering and the bioeconomy. The authors consider comprehensive new regulation for all areas to be unnecessary and counterproductive.

In addition to the “Sanitary Shield” project, which provides for the establishment of further high-security laboratories (BSL-4), a national observation system for synthetic biology is required. This includes the monitoring of DNA synthesis service providers, do-it-yourself biology communities and international collaborations. In the context of the Ukraine war and Western sanctions, Russia has intensified its efforts to achieve technological independence, including the sealing off of sensitive biotechnology data.

Important institutions and scientific advances

Russia’s research and development network is widely ramified. The Federal Research Centre “Fundamentals of Biotechnology” of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) in Moscow serves as a centre of excellence for bioeconomy. It brings together institutes such as the Bach Institute of Biochemistry, the Winogradsky Institute of Microbiology and the Center for Bioengineering. The focus is on systems biology, biocatalysis and the development of new biosynthetic pathways – core areas of synthetic biology.

The State Research Center for Virology and Biotechnology “Vektor” in Novosibirsk is known worldwide for its high-security research on dangerous pathogens. It houses one of the two official smallpox virus camps in the world (next to the USA) and is working on genome editing for vaccines and therapeutics. Despite Western accusations, Vektor emphasizes exclusively defensive goals, such as the development of countermeasures against emerging pathogens.

The Kurchatov Institute in Moscow has been coordinating the development of a national genome database since 2021. By 2030, one million genomes are to be sequenced and stored – anonymized for research purposes. This serves personalized medicine, but also the development of synthetic organisms for industrial applications. Novosibirsk State University (NSU) maintains a dedicated area for synthetic biology and regularly participates in the international iGEM competition, where student teams present synthetic biology projects.

Other players include Lomonosov Moscow University (MSU) with its own Department of Synthetic Biology (since around 2021) and Sechenov University with master’s programs in synthetic biology and genome editing. Despite sanctions and brain drain, Russia is managing to maintain international cooperation – for example with China or BRICS partners.

Concrete advances are rarely published in detail in the literature, but there are indications of successes in the development of microbial cell factories for biofuels, enzymatic catalysts for the chemical industry and genetically modified crops with improved resistance. In the medical field, the focus is on personalized therapies and new vaccine platforms.

Fields of application and opportunities in Russian strategies

Strategic documents explicitly mention applications in healthcare (new drugs, vaccines, gene therapies), agriculture (resistant crops, synthetic fertilizer alternatives), biofuels, chemicals and enzymes. In the long term, the research is aimed at “completely artificial organisms”. The bioeconomy is intended to reduce Russia’s dependence on fossil raw materials and open up new export markets.

Practical examples: Researchers are working on bacteria that convert CO2 into valuable chemicals or biodegrade plastics. In agriculture, genomes of cereals and potatoes are edited to increase yields and increase climate change resilience. The pharmaceutical industry uses synthetic biology for the cost-effective production of complex molecules.

Security aspects, international perspective and uncertainties

The dual-use nature of synthetic biology carries risks. In its documents, Russia itself names the danger of misuse for biological weapons or bioterrorism. Western analyses – for example by the US State Department or think tanks – accuse Russia of using its biotechnology program for offensive purposes. Satellite images showed expansions of BSL-4 laboratories in Sergiev Posad in 2025. Moscow counters with accusations against Western biolaboratories in Ukraine and emphasizes transparency towards the BWC.

However, the study results vary: not all studies are consistent, and much data on newer techniques is missing. International cooperation is hampered by sanctions. Nevertheless, experts worldwide are calling for better governance, for example through screening of DNA synthesis orders and ethical guidelines.

Outlook: Further research and open questions urgently needed

By 2030, Russia wants to become a world leader in selected areas of synthetic biology. The national bioeconomy project and the genome database form the basis. Challenges remain: financing under sanctions pressure, brain drain, ethical issues and the balance between openness and security.

In summary, synthetic biology is primarily addressed strategically and legally in Russia – as a future field for health, bioeconomy and sovereignty, but at the same time as a source of new biosecurity risks. Concrete scientific and technical breakthroughs are described in less detail in official texts; the focus is on programmes, monitoring systems and the adaptation of the legal framework. Further research is needed to seize opportunities and minimize risks. The international community is monitoring developments closely – in the interest of global biosecurity.

References

Brooks, S., & Alper, H. (2021). Applications, challenges, and needs for employing synthetic biology beyond the lab. Nature Communications, 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-21740-0.

Clarke, L., & Kitney, R. (2020). Developing synthetic biology for industrial biotechnology applications. Biochemical Society Transactions, 48, 113 – 122 https://doi.org/10.1042/bst20190349.

François, J., & Atsumi, S. (2023). Editorial: Insights into synthetic biology 2021: Novel developments, current challenges, and future perspectives. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2023.1200227.

Iram, A., Dong, Y., & Ignea, C. (2024). Synthetic biology advances towards a bio-based society in the era of artificial intelligence.. Current opinion in biotechnology, 87, 103143 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2024.103143.

Karoui, E., Hoyos-Flight, M., & Fletcher, L. (2019). Future Trends in Synthetic Biology—A Report. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00175.

Katz, L., Chen, Y., Gonzalez, R., Peterson, T., Zhao, H., & Baltz, R. (2018). Synthetic biology advances and applications in the biotechnology industry: a perspective. Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology, 45, 449-461 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-018-2056-y.

Li, J., Zhao, H., Zheng, L., & An, W. (2021). Advances in Synthetic Biology and Biosafety Governance. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.598087.

McDaniel, R., & Weiss, R. (2005). Advances in synthetic biology: on the path from prototypes to applications.. Current opinion in biotechnology, 16 4, 476-83 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2005.07.002.

Meng, F., & Ellis, T. (2020). The second decade of synthetic biology: 2010–2020. Nature Communications, 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19092-2.

Nechaeva, E., Nekoteneva, M., & Kubyshkin, A. (2025). Development of Legal Regulation of Synthetic Biology: Integration and Legal Aspect. Lex Russica. https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2025.219.2.102-111.

Shapira, P., Kwon, S., & Youtie, J. (2017). Tracking the emergence of synthetic biology. Scientometrics, 112, 1439 – 1469 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2452-5.

Singh, V. (2014). Recent advancements in synthetic biology: current status and challenges.. Gene, 535 1, 1-11 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2013.11.025.

Tan, X., Letendre, J., Collins, J., & Wong, W. (2021). Synthetic biology in the clinic: engineering vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics. Cell, 184, 881-898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.017.

Voigt, C. (2020). Synthetic biology 2020–2030: six commercially-available products that are changing our world. Nature Communications, 11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20122-2.

Wang, F. (2023). Synthetic Biology: From the Past to the Future. Academic Journal of Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.54097/ajst.v5i2.6290.

Wang, F., & Zhang, W. (2019). Synthetic biology: Recent progress, biosafety and biosecurity concerns, and possible solutions. Journal of Biosafety and Biosecurity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobb.2018.12.003.

Xu, T., Huang, X., Dao, J., Xiao, D., & Wei, D. (2025). Synthetic biology for medical biomaterials. Interdisciplinary Medicine, 3. https://doi.org/10.1002/inmd.20240087.

Yan, X., Liu, X., Zhao, C., & Chen, G. (2023). Applications of synthetic biology in medical and pharmaceutical fields. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-023-01440-5.

Zhang, X., Liu, C., Dai, J., Yuan, Y., Gao, C., Feng, Y., Wu, B., Wei, P., You, C., Wang, X., & Si, T. (2023). Enabling technology and core theory of synthetic biology. Science China. Life Sciences, 1 – 44 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-022-2214-2.

(2019). Synthetic Biology: Modern Challenges and Problems of Biosafety. World Economy and International Relations, 63, 77-83 https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-12-77-83.

The article was originally published by LabNews Media LLC

---

Editor: X-Press Journalistenbüro GbR

Gender Notice. The personal designations used in this text always refer equally to female, male and diverse persons. Double/triple naming and gendered designations are used for better readability ected.