It is theoretically possible to make animals form controllable toxic properties through gene editing technology, but the practical application faces multiple challenges and ethical issues. The following is a comprehensive analysis： ###**Technical feasibility** 1. **Basics of gene editing** Existing technologies (such as CRISPR) can already modify animal genes, such as introducing toxin genes (such as snake venom protein genes) into other organisms. However, the mechanism of synthesis, storage, and release of toxins needs to be precisely regulated, otherwise it may endanger the host itself. 2. **Controllability mechanism** -**Trigger method**: External induction (such as chemicals, optical signals) may be required to activate toxin release. For example, optogenetic techniques have been used to control neuronal activity, and similar principles may be applied to toxin release. -**Targeted delivery**: Toxins need to be designed to target only specific targets (such as specific cell receptors) to avoid nonspecific damage. 3. **Animal selection** Small, easy-to-control and fast-breeding species (such as insects and rodents) are more likely to be candidates, but their behavioral control problems (such as training or remote navigation) need to be solved. ###**Challenges and risks** 1. **Biological restrictions** - Toxins may be toxic to the host, and complex metabolic isolation mechanisms need to be designed. -Genetic stability and genetic drift may lead to unpredictable mutations. 2. **Ecological risk** If genetically modified animals escape into the wild, they may pollute the ecosystem through gene flow, such as the spread of toxic genes to wild populations. 3. **Ethics and Law** -**International Conventions**: The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) expressly prohibits the development, production or stockpiling of biological weapons, including genetically modified organisms. - **Ethical disputes**: The use of animals as weapons involves serious ethical issues and may cause strong opposition from the international community. 4. **Military practicality** -**Effectiveness issues**: Traditional weapons (such as chemical agents and drones) may be more efficient and controllable than genetically modified animals. -**Cost and R&D cycle**: The complexity and uncertainty of gene editing technology may lead to high costs and suspicious military returns. ###**Conclusion** -**Theoretical possibility**: Gene editing technology may be able to achieve controllable toxicity in animals in the future, but multiple scientific bottlenecks need to be broken through. -**Realistic obstacles**: Ethical, legal, ecological risks and technical complexity make military applications extremely unrealistic. -**Alternative**: The military field is more likely to invest in synthetic biology to produce toxins directly, rather than relying on live animals. **Final recommendation**: Research in this direction needs to be carried out under strict supervision, and priority should be given to peaceful uses such as medical treatment or environmental protection to avoid violating international law and ethical norms.