Biological and Toxin Weapons - Assignment Example

Have advances in bioscience lead to the greater risk of a biological attack by a non actor? In the contemporary age, there is a lot of political distress caused by the purposeful propagation of the pathogenic micro-organisms. There are certain motivational factors that encourage the non-state actors to do the biological attack. Review of the literature to date suggests that there has been very limited discussion about the tendency or readiness of the non-state actors to make use of the biological weapons as a tool to achieve their goals. One of the reasons why that is so is that very few cases of the individuals or groups in possession of the biological weapons have conventionally been identified. Nevertheless, a review of the practices and trends of the non-state actors in the past provides a very subjective idea of the tendency of the contemporary non-state actors to cause harm to the society through the biological weapons, given there has occurred a noticeable increase in the body of knowledge about the harmful effects of the pathogenic micro-organisms for humans over the decades. Even though, to the extent that the review of the historic cases is beneficial for understanding the current trends and capabilities of the non-state actors, one historic cases of the biological attack carried out by the non-state actors successively in 1984 is discussed in this paper. Using the pathogenic micro-organisms as a destructive tool exposes both the society and the non-state actors to various kinds of challenges. This paper analyzes the extent to which the non-state actors involved in the biological attacks are a threat to the society. The most popular biological attack in the history of the USA was made in 1984 by a religious cult Rajneeshees that stole an Oregon-based country election. The Rajneeshees lived in the rural Wasco County and had become politically strong in Antelope, a small town whose name was thus changed to Rajneesh. The Rajneeshees attempted to gain full control of the whole county by winning the 1984 election. To achieve that, the Rajneeshees resolved to make the voters of the Wasco County living in The Dalles ill by using the salmonella bacteria. Rajneeshees did this so that the ill voters would not cast the vote. After few unsuccessful attempts of making the people sick by first putting salmonella in the drinks and then by sprinkling it on the produce in the grocery stores, the Rajneeshees were finally able to make above 700 people sick by spraying salmonella bacteria in the salad bars of the town’s restaurants. “They apparently didnt expect it to be such a huge success. The attention attracted by the salad bar escapade brought hordes of health officials and investigators into The Dalles. It dashed the cults plan to do worse on Election Day” (Zaitz cited in Grossman, 2001). Scientists all over the world are quite worried about the future use of the biological weapons (Enquist cited in Greenfieldboyce, 2011). Assessing the increased potential of the non-state actors to obtain and use the biological weapons, the international community has launched certain measures to control the risks. These measures include but are not limited to the UN Security Council Resolution 1540 and the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) (DAgostino and Martin, 2009). These initiatives were launched in the year 2004 with the intention to enable the states to keep the non-state actors from developing or gaining anything which puts them into a position of using the chemical or the biological weapons. Other agencies that have taken similar measures include the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Although the non-state actors are exposed to numerous technical obstacles that they have to cross to get into a position to weaponize the biological agents, yet the computerization of the intricate processes of molecular biology, synthetic genomics and the outbreak of the technologies have played an important role in facilitating the non-state actors. “This highlights the importance of fostering a culture of sensitivity to biosecurity issues within the life sciences community” (D’Agostino and Martin, 2009). On 10 April 1972, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) was opened for signature. This Convention condemns the creation, storage and attainment of the biological weapons. It is conventionally referred to as “the first international treaty to ban an entire class of weapons” (HSP, 2001). The BWC was implemented on 26 March 1975. Till June 2000, the BWC contained a total of 144 states parties excluding Taiwan. The depositaries of the BWC included Russia, the UK and the USA. According to the Article I of this Convention, Each state party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain: (1) Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes [emphasis added]; (2) Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict. (HSP, 2001). Conflicts that are occurring worldwide in the present age are much different in nature and magnitude than they were in the past. The evolution of the bioscience has provided the armed opposition groups with a way to perform autonomously other than the government. Bioterrorism means “the use of biological agents against civilians by nonstate actors” (Finnegan, n.d., p. 1). The non-state actors involved in the bioterrorism through the spread of the pathogenic micro-organisms include but are not limited to the rebel groups, insurgents, guerillas, freedom fighters, irregular armed forces and the liberation movements. According to the Non-State Actors Working Group (NSAWG), the number of the recognized non-state actors excluding the drug cartels, farmers and other non-state actors that also cause the violence is almost 190 (Buse, n.d.). “The rise of these transnationally organized non-state actors and their growing involvement in world politics challenge the assumptions of traditional approaches to international relations which assume that states are the only important units of the international system” (Geeraerts, n.d.). The goals, sources of funds and support, level of international recognition, strategies and ideology of the different groups among the non-state actors vary to a large extent. The non-state actors may or may not be different from the terrorist groups, depending upon the international recognition they have. The terrorist groups are agencies which indulge in violent acts and apparently do not have any reason for the display of violence but to create and promote terror in the society. In a vast majority of cases, the non-state actors do not target the military troops but the general public. The terrorist groups are internationally recognized while the non-state actors are generally not. Despite the fact that the conventional nuclear technology is more capable of affecting the population, biological weapons are being considered riskier than that because of the ease with which they can be attained, developed and used by the non-state actors. There are much lesser hurdles in the way of the acquisition and propagation of the deadly pathogens by the non-state actors than assembling the plutonium or uranium into a nuclear device. Cost of production is usually the biggest issue in front of the non-state actors because of the limited resources that they have. Since they are cost effective, biological weapons are preferred by the non-state actors than the chemical or the nuclear weapons. The production of the biological weapons is usually on a smaller scale and the knowledge required to produce them can generally easily be retrieved from the literature. Even if there is limited know-how about the creation or the technique of use of a particular biological weapon, a vast majority of the terrorist groups formed by the non-state actors are sufficiently rich and well-resourced to recruit and benefit from the services of the scientists that are expert in the use of the technologies involved. For example, “…al-Qaida’s BW initiative included recruitment of individuals with Ph.D.-level expertise who supported planning and acquisition efforts by their familiarity with the scientific community” (Leitenberg, 2005, p. 29). What makes the biological weapons all the more suitable for the non-state actors is the ease with which they can be carried, transported and used in the public. While a nuclear bomb is easily detectable and is obviously noticeable by the public, biological weapons are mostly non-detectable or traceable. All an individual needs is a paper-bag to store the micro-organisms in which can be released in the air by dusting the paper-bag empty. “[W]hile nuclear proliferation has been slowed in part by export controls and international safeguards on the specialized materials required by nuclear weapons, such controls and safeguards are much less effective against biological proliferation” (Martin, 2002, p. 81). The advancement in biotechnology is not restricted to the improvement of the efficiency of industrial mechanisms that produce the biological agents. Scientists are now able to incorporate the elements of foreign genes into the DNA of plants and animals in such a way that the targeted organism starts creating new proteins that have not been already programmed in its genes. As a result of this, the biological warfare has significantly revolutionized. This technology has immense potential to be used in a negative way. It is now possible to engineer the transgenic plants so as to yield toxic proteins in large quantities from them. These can be directly used as an agent in the biological warfare. Therefore, we might see the transgenic plants as being used as the bioproduction reactors in the future without the use of any mechanical equipment that has conventionally been employed in the process. Insects including mosquitoes, wasps and bees are increasingly being used to create and pass the agents of biological warfare that are based on protein. “By employing future discoveries related to insect ontogeny and genetic manipulation, a mosquito potentially could be genetically altered to produce and secrete a highly potent bioregulator or toxin protein in its saliva” (Petro, Plasse, and McNulty, 2003, p. 163). The process of the protein purification with the bioprocess mechanisms and the production of the viruses and bacteria have seen a complete revolution with the advancement in the biotechnology. A large number of the new approaches have been particularly developed with a view to minimizing the technical expertise required to create the biological agents in such a large volume that would suffice the non-state actors with evil machinations. “Application of these technologies toward production of BW agents may lead to increased yield of high-quality product from decreased resources, greater consistency among product batches, and marginal requirements for “cutting-edge” expertise” (Petro, Plasse, and McNulty, 2003, p. 163). The global politics will see an altogether change as the biological weapons become more widespread. This will even provide the weak countries with a power to put-off the risks to their interests. Biological weapons are far more useful as the strategic deterrents as compared to the nuclear weapons because of the increased utility and applicability of the biological weapons. The greater number of biological states than the nuclear states also makes biological weapons more important drivers of the global politics than the nuclear or chemical weapons. Concluding, advancement in the bioscience has led to a greater risk of a biological attack by the non-state actors. A potential example of this is the 1984 biological salmonella attack made by the Rajneeshees that made more than 700 people sick. There has been a lot of research and development in the field of bioscience over the decades and today producing, carrying and disseminating the pathogenic micro-organisms is the easiest. The ease and cost effectiveness of the production of biological weapons has facilitated the non-state actors a lot because they have limited resources and technological expertise. Besides, the tendency of the biological weapons to cause harm to few individuals in the society rather than the whole population at one time like the nuclear weapon does makes the biological weapon a very suitable choice for the non-state actors that target common people rather than armed forces. References: Buse, M. (n.d.). Non- State Actors and Their Significance. Retrieved from http://maic.jmu.edu/journal/5.3/features/maggie_buse_nsa/maggie_buse.htm. DAgostino, M., and Martin, G. (2009, Feb. 16). The bioscience revolution & the biological weapons threat: levers & interventions. Globalization and Health. 5(3). doi:10.1186/1744-8603-5-3. Finnegan, T. (n.d.). “Bioterrorism” and the Dual Use Dilemma. Retrieved from http://www.ethicsandtechnology.eu/images/uploads/Bioterrorism_-_Tom_Finnegan.pdf. Geeraerts, G. (n.d.). Analyzing Non-State Actors in World Politics. Retrieved from http://asrudiancenter.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/analyzing-non-state-actors-in-world-politics/. Greenfieldboyce, N. (2011). Bird Flu Research Rattles Bioterrorism Field. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/11/17/142453447/bird-flu-research-rattles-bioterrorism-field. Grossman, L. K. (2001). The Story of a Truly Contaminated Election. Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20020614093959/http://www.cjr.org/year/01/1/grossman.asp. Harvard Sussex Program. (2001, Jan. 31). The 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC). Retrieved from http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsp/biologic.html. Leitenberg, M. (2005, Dec.). Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat. Retrieved from http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub639.pdf. Martin, S. B. (2002, Mar.) The Role of Biological Weapons in International Politics: The Real Military Revolution. The Journal of Strategic Studies. 25(1): 63–98. Petro, J. B., Plasse, T. R., and McNulty, J. A. (2003). Biotechnology: Impact on Biological Warfare and Biodefense. Biosecurity And Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, And Science. 1(3): 161-168. Read More