What's New in Life Science Research is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them Biodefense is the defense against attack with biological weapons, namely infectious agents—viruses and bacteria such as anthrax and smallpox—and toxins like botulinum and ricin.
Biological agents can be genetically engineered to make them more deadly, better able to withstand environmental hazards, and more easily disseminated. When successfully weaponized, these pathogens have devastating potential to cause epidemics, particularly in densely populated urban areas.
While vaccines do exist for certain potential biological weapons, like those against anthrax and smallpox, they are typically administered only to some military personnel or persons considered at high risk of exposure. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control maintain stores of these vaccines, along with antibiotics and anti-viral drugs, in the Strategic National Stockpile, but tests simulating bioterrorist attacks have shown current response tactics to be largely ineffective.
So, how do we defend against biological weapons?
Furthermore, where do we draw the line between defense and weapons research? Controversy arose recently when it emerged that the US prohibits the transfer of vaccines, such as vaccines against Avian Influenza, to countries considered hostile or terrorist nations. Is there real cause for concern that a country could produce biological weapons from vaccines?
What do you envision as the comparative harm that could be inflicted with a warfare based primarily on the use of biological weapons as opposed to traditional weapons? What are the positives and negatives of using these weapons as opposed to hand-to-hand combat or the use of firearms and explosives?
With growing concerns of a viral pandemic such as Avian Influenza, how important will the development of vaccinations and the creation of plans to protect the country from naturally-occurring viral outbreaks be? What do you anticipate would happen in the event of an Avian Influenza outbreak?
What do you see the role of biological organisms playing in the future of warfare?
Life Science
Comments
Disease has certainly played a big part in military history. It is doubtful that the Spanish would have had such a free hand in North America if they wouldn't have had relative immunity to the diseases the brought with them. The native populations were, at the least, decimated and society disrupted.
Certainly the military has historically tried to take advantage of such events and have, frequently, tried to advance the diseases that favored them. This was largely made possible because there were considerable differences in immunities between groups.
I don't see rational actors using disease as a weapon simply because the differences in immunity between nations and ethnic groups are not so clear any more. This makes the tendency of disease to resist containment much more problematic.
Release a biological agent anywhere in the world and there is a reasonable chance it shows up at any other place in time.
Certain groups may be initially more vulnerable to receiving any disease. The Muslim Haj is a fine way of making sure any disease present is spread to all populations of believers. Every year a proportion of every Muslim community congregate in one place for a time and then return to their individual communities.
I think any thinking Muslim would consider this and reject the idea of biological weapons. As a matter off faith their religion may prevent them but as a practical matter they seem to be more vulnerable than most. Hard to say which carries more weight.
Other populations are seemingly less vulnerable but it is just a matter of degree. I'm sure some clever genetic manipulator could produce a 'self-limiting' virus or one targeted against a single ethnicity. But will it ever be a sure thing. Microorganisms mutate and share genetic materials. They change and recombine in unpredictable ways.
It seems to me that there will always be a considerable risk that the disease you create and/or set lose will go farther than intended and/or come back at you. What if it becomes less well targeted against one ethnic group or population. What if the disease that is designed to self destruct fails to do so. What happens if it finds another host species and becomes endemic.
You and the select survivors hunker down in your germ-proof bunker after you release your disease. Your creation is set to self destruct in thirty days. What if the disease doesn't self destruct. What if it gets into birds or other host and takes up residence. Sure your willing to hunker down for a month. How do you feel about hunkering down forever?
Sounds like a Twilight Zone plot. It may be a Twilight Zone plot AFAIK. But once let go I'm not sure anyone can tell what will happen with any certainty. If you want to kill people there are plenty of ways to do it that don't have such a potentially dark down sides.
Then again biological weapons are cheap and relatively easy to work with. A person or group that was seeking indiscriminate death and disruption might see this as a viable means to that end.
As would true believers who think that 'God is on their side'. If they are sure God and their faith will supernaturally protect them they might convince themselves that they would be the sole survivors and, after the fact,would be free to repopulate a 'new earth'. In effect wiping the slate clean and stating over.
** Insert supporting and justifying religious/ philosophical mythology/story here.**
In addition to the biological agents being potentially unpredictable the people who might create and use such a weapon are potentially unpredictable. Belief in the supernatural opens the door to the unthinkable.
But that overlooks accidental release of such agents or that hey will emerge naturally on their own or because of our exposure of and to any of the many less traveled and explored environments. Like the emergence of Ebola.
A very mixed bag with no easy answers.
Posted by: Art | December 11, 2008 4:26 PM
Using any kind of biological weapons is bound to backfire on whoever is making them. With the speed of interactions today any disease that got out would spread over the world like wildfire; unless one country is able to innoculate *everyone* within its borders, they are going to end up wiping out their own citizens.
There really would be no way to prepare for such a thing either. Even in nations with a good hospital service and supplies could not cope with the proportion of sickness that biological warefare would produce.
It would all be a bit of a nighmare really. Whether man-made or natural.
Posted by: Lab Rat | December 12, 2008 6:49 AM
thanks
Posted by: cet | April 27, 2009 7:11 PM