Harnessing GEOINT and BIOINT could revolutionise how we predict and prevent biological threats, provided ethical and legal frameworks keep pace.
Image Source: Getty Images
In 2020, when the COVID-19 pandemic began, tracking the spread of the virus and those affected became a priority immediately. The use of Geospatial Tech and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) was the intuitive answer. In the United States (US), Johns Hopkins Medical Centre created a visual dashboard that became a popular resource for stakeholders and concerned citizens to track the progress and movement of the virus. This visual aid was based on Ensheng Dong’s GIS tracker, which he developed to ensure that his family, living in Taiyuan in China’s Shanxi Province, was safe from the virus. He created the tracker one month after hearing news of the COVID-19 virus, and it helped form the foundation for other trackers built worldwide.
Geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), which combines GIS, remote sensing, and satellite reconnaissance, offers valuable potential for monitoring infectious disease transmission, enhancing readiness for biological emergencies, and even the detection of latent biosecurity threats.
In this space, geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), which combines GIS, remote sensing, and satellite reconnaissance, offers valuable potential for monitoring infectious disease transmission, enhancing readiness for biological emergencies, and even the detection of latent biosecurity threats. Despite the success of such GIS trackers, geospatial technology has yet to be fully utilised in biosafety, biosecurity, and overall biodefense.
As regards other virus outbreaks that pose a risk to India, such as the Nipah virus or Human Metapneumovirus (HMPV), there is a clear need to map and thoroughly survey the spread of these diseases. Currently, the surveillance measures taken in this sector are limited to individual house checks and testing of animal-based samples (including bat droppings in the case of the Nipah virus) found in the region.
Rather than depending simply on contact tracing as a method for disease surveillance, real-time tracking of contagious diseases using GEOINT can help complement existing approaches. Governments and health agencies can utilise satellite information to track animal movement and migration, and heat signatures. Simultaneously, GIS software can help map disease transmission, identify at-risk areas, and determine environmental factors that influence outbreaks. Successful examples include the 2014 Ebola crisis in West Africa, where GIS and remote sensing helped map affected areas and evaluate infrastructure, and the tracking of malaria vulnerability in Madagascar. Satellite imaging also helps track migration flows, population pressures, and environmental factors, yielding essential information on how illnesses such as COVID-19 and Ebola are transmitted.
Governments and health agencies can utilise satellite information to track animal movement and migration, and heat signatures. Simultaneously, GIS software can help map disease transmission, identify at-risk areas, and determine environmental factors that influence outbreaks.
The use of geospatial technology, however, should not be limited to biosafety and disaster management; a preventative lens can also be applied to such technologies. Satellite monitoring helps identify biological threats, including potential bioweapons. Disease prevention can be pursued by tracking animal migration, droppings and mortality rates, monitoring water sources near chemical facilities, and establishing biosafety labs. Such data should be made accessible through public trackers. Enforcing global accountability mechanisms through such trackers can help deter the development of biological weapons and enable quicker responses to potential biological risks.
A strong example of this approach is the work being done at Los Alamos National Laboratory, specifically the BioWatch system, where geospatial tools are used to model the behaviour of aerosolised biological agents. By deploying air samplers and applying atmospheric dispersion models, authorities can detect potential biological releases, model their spread, and coordinate timely responses. This combination of proactive surveillance and responsive modelling underscores the importance of integrating geospatial technologies into a global biosafety framework.
The integration of GEOINT with environmental genomic analysis — BIOINT — presents unprecedented biodefense opportunities, particularly in pandemic control and the detection of bioweapons.
A new paradigm, BIOINT (Biological Intelligence), expands GEOINT's capabilities by incorporating environmental DNA (eDNA) and RNA analysis to monitor ecosystems. In contrast to legacy biodefense surveillance, which has long been more reactive to outbreaks than preventative, BIOINT emphasises persistent surveillance, delivering early warning of nascent threats to global ecosystems. BIOINT offers an opportunity to draw international focus to biodefense again and is valuable due to its advocacy for continuity. This is achieved through ongoing environmental sampling, which establishes baselines for threat levels at every location, enabling the quick identification of anomalies. BIOINT also requires pervasive and universal application. In regions where direct data collection is constrained by political or geographic barriers, BIOINT can still function by leveraging transboundary ecosystems and shared watercourses that cross national borders. The integration of GEOINT with environmental genomic analysis — BIOINT — presents unprecedented biodefense opportunities, particularly in pandemic control and the detection of bioweapons. While GEOINT is already proving valuable, BIOINT offers an additional advantage through real-time environmental monitoring that can identify emerging biological hazards before they develop into crises.
Creating clear ethical and legal frameworks is essential to ensure the responsible use of these technologies as they evolve. Such safeguards can help realise the full potential of BIOINT in preventing and responding to biological threats, ultimately protecting public health and global security. The continuous development of BIOINT will be crucial for future preparedness, shaping response efforts to emerging biological threats.
Although the application of geospatial intelligence provides stronger tools for biodefense, it also poses serious ethical and legal challenges. The collection of sensitive data on human biology and health should be weighed against considerations of privacy, civil liberties, and international law.
One of the most critical ethical issues is the potential use of GEOINT to encroach on individuals’ privacy. Specifically, in contact tracing and subsequent GIS mapping, there is a possibility of personal information being made public. This can potentially result in both discrimination against individuals affected by certain diseases and broader violations of privacy through the publication of sensitive information without consent. These risks raise concerns around government overreach and data misuse.
To address these challenges, boundaries must be set explicitly for how GEOINT is gathered, stored, and utilised. The Indian Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) and associated Rules currently do not address geospatial data explicitly. They also allow Data Fiduciaries to utilise personal data until the Data Principal withdraws consent. Going forward, there needs to be specific consideration for sensitive personal information, particularly the health and biological data of individuals and their disease susceptibility. Such data can inform public policy but should not enable the identification of individuals or compromise their privacy.
For GEOINT to be ethical, populations must be notified of the surveillance in their regions, particularly when human health data is being collected, as opposed to environmental data. Since all data—especially human health, biometric and biological data—cannot be anonymised, transparency and standards for use, collection, and detection are critical.
Closely related is a second ethical issue: obtaining informed consent from individuals and/or communities who are being monitored. Satellite surveillance and GIS operations are often conducted without the knowledge or consent of the concerned populations, raising concerns about transparency. For GEOINT to be ethical, populations must be notified of the surveillance in their regions, particularly when human health data is being collected, as opposed to environmental data. Since all data—especially human health, biometric and biological data—cannot be anonymised, transparency and standards for use, collection, and detection are critical.
Satellite surveillance also raises concerns around national sovereignty, particularly when such surveillance crosses borders. To address this, GEOINT systems should be integrated with global mechanisms for accountability. At the same time, international regulations surrounding the use of biological weapons and pandemic response remain vague, particularly when it comes to the cross-border sharing of surveillance data.
The World Health Organization (WHO) currently manages the Geolocated Health Facilities Data Initiative (GHFDI), a database that identifies the locations and capacities of health facilities around the world. Building on this model, a similar WHO-managed database focused on collecting and analysing biosafety risk information from these facilities could significantly strengthen global biodefense. Such a system would enable more informed decision-making and ensure national accountability to a global platform like the WHO.
GEOINT — and its integration into BIOINT — is a crucial step in advancing global biodefense. It offers a shift beyond reactive measures to include predictive and preventative capabilities that can improve the global approach to pandemics, bioweapons, and broader biosafety risks. However, much like any other technology, its promise must be accompanied by robust ethical standards and legal frameworks that protect individual privacy, ensure informed consent, and address international concerns around sovereignty and accountability. With the right structures in place, GEOINT and BIOINT can serve not only as instruments of health and environmental surveillance, but as pillars of global health security and ethical governance in the face of biological threats.
Shravishtha Ajaykumar is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Security, Strategy, and Technology at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Shravishtha Ajaykumar is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Security, Strategy, and Technology. Her research areas include Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) strategy ...
Read More +
PREV
