There has recently been some discussion about using DNA simulations to encrypt; see this technical report and subsequent discussion here and here. The basic idea being proposed is to simulate biological processes in order to encrypt; more specifically, the process by which mRNA is generated from DNA. The entire report is strange. First, its entire presumption is that we need new methods because modern cryptographic algorithms keep getting broken. This is the same argument made in favor of quantum cryptographic schemes (like quantum key exchange). However, at least these quantum methods have a strong theoretical basis and achieve proven information-theoretic security (meaning that even an all-powerful attacker cannot learn the exchanged key). In contrast, this report just uses computational methods based on what happens to DNA. Why is this supposed to be any better than any other computational methods that we use today? On the contrary, there is no evidence whatsoever that it is hard to invert the scheme, and in fact, the authors admit that they themselves know of weaknesses (and suggest vague solutions for fixing them).

In addition to the above, the report ignores the fact that the cryptographic playing field is not even. It is true that our hash functions are looking weaker than ever before. It is also true that we are constantly on the lookout for new asymmetric schemes due to the need to use larger and larger keys all the time (even though RSA with long keys is still very safe). However, this does not mean that we don't have good symmetric encryption schemes. The opposite is true! It is well accepted that we know how to construct excellent block ciphers. 3DES has not shown any weaknesses in over 2 decades; AES remains extremely strong after almost a decade of intensive analysis. These schemes are quick and highly secure. The fact of the matter is that we don't need any new symmetric schemes at the moment (personally, I don't think that quantum key exchange is needed either). Moreso, what we definitely don't need are suggestions for schemes by non-experts with no reasoning as to why they should be better. (I know that I sound like a snob now. But cryptography in general is excruciatingly hard to get right and constructing a secure symmetric encryption scheme is even harder. There's just no reason to do it today even if you're an expert. Needless to say, if you're not an expert with years of experience in cryptanalysis you shouldn't try. However, for some reason, everyone thinks that it's easy to encrypt. Just mix things around a lot and it's got to be hard to break; right?)

A final caveat. I may be completely wrong. It's possible that all of our encryption algorithms have been broken by secret organizations out there. However, I highly doubt it. Although I assume that there are some things that are known to some of those secret organizations that we don't know in the open crypto community, I am very skeptical that they are earth shattering...