Twist Biosciences backs state screening bill, warns of dual‑use risks as AI designs novel sequences

James Diggins, speaking for Twist Biosciences, described large‑scale synthetic‑DNA manufacturing and how AI design models can produce sequences not observed in nature. He said Twist produces hundreds of thousands of designed variants for model training and that screening every order against databases of dangerous pathogens and sanction lists is an established industry practice. "We don't consider screening a competitive burden," he said, and expressed support for Assembly Bill AB 1864 (introduced by Assemblymember Berman) to require state providers to carry out similar screening.

Diggins also described a coordinated response after academic and industry teams showed protein‑design tools could in theory redesign toxins to evade screening: Twist worked with Microsoft Research and others to patch screening systems and then distributed corrective updates to synthesis companies worldwide before public disclosure. He recommended that California align with federal standards and invest in measurement datasets rather than imposing divergent state‑level rules that could fragment an interstate industry.

Why it matters: Gene synthesis is a core supply‑chain element for biotech; as AI reduces the cost and time of biological design, the industry emphasized defensive screening and voluntary best practices but urged state–federal coordination to avoid harmful fragmentation. The committee heard both support for AB 1864’s goals and an industry plea for harmonized federal standards.

Next steps: Twist urged state legislators to consider funding for public datasets and laboratory measurement capacity and to avoid state requirements that diverge materially from federal frameworks.