Biological weaponry

A discussion of biological weaponry (BW), including how advances in the biosciences greatly expand the possible types of weapons far beyond the traditional use of infectious agents and biological toxins, represents a new direction for discussion within Geneforum.

In one sense, this is not a topic of immediate relevance in the world, that is, nobody, save perhaps for a few misguided souls, seems to be trying to use them. At least as far as we know. And it is known, or strongly suspected, that a number of countries are still developing offensive weapons, including at least one of the staunchest allies of the United States. The Biological Weapons Convention entered into force in 1975 and has been ratified by most (with a few notable exceptions) countries of the world.

As a topic with possibly catastropic implications, however, it is a most timely and relevant one for Geneforum.

Last night, on PBS, a documentary was aired that covered the history of BW in the United States, up to the renunciation of the development and testing of such weapons by then Preseident Nixon in 1969. The most alarming thing to me was not even the secret testing that was done on animals and human volunteers, but the fact that the use of a widely desseminated microbial agent as a means of inflicting death and disability on the scale of nuclear weapons was even considered seriously at all. The development and use of such weapons, designed only to kill huge numbers of human beings, had a large cadre of cheerleaders within the U.S. government, as committed and as enthusiastic as the scientists working on the Manhattan Project and the promoters of nuclear weapons as a primary instrument of political strategy as as a means of obtaining and securing power. What seems not to have been discussed, at least openly, is any justification for perpetrating the death of millions of human beings. Our society, at least officially, frowns upon murder and it is illegal. And mass murder is even worse. Yet it is a well entrenched element of national policy and today more money is spent in at least the United States' annual budget to continually expand our capacity to kill human beings.

Why should biological weapons be considered any worse than chemical or nuclear weapons, or bombs or guns or knives? All are instruments of war, whose primary function is to inflict death. As a moral or ethical issue, should we not then consider the morality or war to be the governing topic, not merely the repugnance of a particular category or weapons? Personally, I don't think there can be a separation. We may deal with the control of particular categories of weapons, but we may never lose our perspective and cease to question our society and our leaders why the pursuit of war and the concomitant death and destruction that always ensues should ever be undertaken.

With that preamble, and getting us back to think about the dark side of the spectacular advances in genetics and cell biology, let us look at some possible applications to BWs that lie outside the traditional ways of thinking, i.e., highly virulent infection of threat of a pandemic. I ask you to ponder the following:

• With an extensive knowlege of viral genomes, and using as a starting point viral vectors developed to construct transgenic animals or for human gene therapy, it is possible to add other genes and gene families, that could be used to inflict pathology or one sort or another on its human host.

• Contraceptive vaccines were developed and tested beginning in the early 1980s. Combining such technology with advanced vaccine delivery systems (nasal sprays or oral vaccines), it is at least theoretically possible to administer such a vaccine to a large population without its knowledge. An anti-fertility weapon would be devastating and demoralizing to a population. Read/see "Children of Men" by P.D. James, and/or the subsequent movie made from the novel.
  

• The use of techniques to control the expression of a specific gene are now being explored as cancer therapeutics and for other medical application (e.g., anti-sense oligonucleotides). The use of such methods to block the expression of an essential gene product could lead to the gradual demise of a human being over a period of weeks or months as the essential protein was depleted and not replenished. Clinically, this could appear as a natural disease, although probably not diagnosed or perhaps misdiagnosed. Without a the use of novel diagnostic methods, the cause of death would probably not even show up in a thorough autopsy. This could consititute a clean and nearly undetectable means of assassination, or, if administered to a large population, a new type of "disease" that would be very difficult to prepare against in advance.
  

In my view, the problem is not that science and the technology it spawns has the potential for the most nefarious of misuse. Essentially all technology can be misused. The challenge is how we can bring about a global society that is governed by a respect for life, where war itself, not merely the means to conduct it, would be unthinkable.

Burke Zimmerman