The September 11 terrorist attacks and the recent spate of anthrax cases have been a terrible wake-up call for most Americans. After years of warnings, the country is finally taking the threat of biological and chemical attacks seriously. Much of the focus lately has been on protecting ordinary citizens from anthrax, or from possible releases of other biological agents such as smallpox. But it should not be forgotten that the nation's military is particularly vulnerable to these types of attacks.

I recently chaired a committee of the National Research Council that examined ways that advances in biotechnology could provide advantages for soldiers on future battlefields, including defending soldiers against biological, chemical, and environmental threats. We identified several promising research projects that should be high priorities - and they have become all the more relevant in the months since our report was issued. In fact, in light of recent events, it's clear that many of these projects would benefit both the nation's military and ordinary U.S. citizens.

Using biotechnology to develop sensors that signal the presence of pathogens, toxic chemicals, or other environmental threats to unsuspecting troops is one example. Biosensors could detect threats directly in the air or water, or be used to monitor individual soldiers for symptoms of exposure to a harmful substance. Clearly, such technologies could be valuable tools in fighting domestic terrorism as well. And they could also help protect U.S. food supplies. For example, biosensors could eventually be able to detect not only deliberate tampering but also naturally occurring pathogens such as foot-and-mouth disease.

Already, biochips as small as postage stamps are capable of performing sophisticated chemical analyses. In future military applications, a network of biosensors, some perhaps worn as wristwatch-like devices, might be used to augment other intelligence sources on the battlefield to give commanders a more complete picture of potential threats. Biosensor systems also might trigger the release of an antidote or activate a protective mask upon detecting a harmful substance.

Other promising developments include biomaterials and biologically inspired materials. These organic or synthetic materials are compatible with the human body's bone, skin, and other tissues. Because of the nature of the injuries that soldiers incur, one of the overriding goals in this area of research is to produce materials that can heal wounds, repair bones, and self-replicate. Innovations in tissue engineering, such as cartilage repair and replacement and the use of stem cells to replace dead or damaged tissue, could help advance work in this area.

Obviously, none of these technologies will be available tomorrow. In fact, it could take years to develop and perfect them, and many hurdles must be overcome. Biosensor systems need to be made more versatile, and small molecules that flag the presence of biohazards need to be identified. Proteins that can enable growth of synthetic materials on biological surfaces have yet to be discovered. And new techniques are needed to identify protein functions and optimize the design of new proteins through genetic engineering for myriad possible applications.

That is why it is crucial for the army to forge new, effective partnerships with the emerging biotechnology industry, which continues to grow at a phenomenal rate. The R&D budgets of the large pharmaceutical companies alone far surpass the army's R&D budget. But biotech firms are much less dependent on the military for their existence than traditional defense or aerospace industries with which the army and other branches have routinely interacted. That means "business as usual" will not be a viable option when dealing with biotech firms.

What's more, the developments pursued by private biotech companies are determined by the marketplace. Nearly all commercial biotech research is currently focused on medicine. But many important military applications will be nonmedical in nature and lack commercial appeal. To contribute to, interpret, and influence developments, the army should build an in-house cadre of experts. Professionals with knowledge in both engineering and biology should be sought.

Much work needs to be done to bring these technologies to fruition. But with further research, biotechnology may advance the army's strategic position in the same way that information technology has revolutionized its operations today. If biotechnologies can live up to their potential, then the effort will be well worth it.