Ethics of Biological Warfare - Essay Example

? 15 October Ethics of Biological Warfare Humans have had fights with one another since the evolution of mankind. The history of the debate about the justification or illegitimacy of war can also be traced to the same point. “The discussion of the ethics of war goes back to the Greeks and Romans, although neither civilization behaved particularly well in war” (“History of war ethics”). With the passage of time, the nature of war has changed. When the Japanese attacked the Chinese in the World War II, the premeditated release of toxins and pathogens caused millions of deaths. Contemporary wars are characterized by the use of biochemical and nuclear weapons rather than manual force. Thus, contemporary wars have erupted on all levels ranging from domestic to international. The increase of knowledge in such fields as nuclear physics, chemistry, biology and radiology has generated a fear among the scientists about the potential of the modified pathogens to comprise overwhelming agents for the warfare. This paper briefly discusses the history of warfare and the ethics of science’s role in the advancement of modern warfare in general and the chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) warfare in particular. The evolution of all sorts of weaponry can fundamentally be attributed to the dual-use dilemma. Researchers may not be intending to develop something potentially harmful, yet they assume great tendency to do so while experimenting with noble intentions. A research done in 2001 demonstrates the dual-use dilemma. In this research, the researchers’ efforts were directed at creating a contraceptive vaccine for the pest control, but on their way, researchers ended up developing a bioweapon. Australian researchers hypothesized that introducing a gene that creates large amounts of interleukin-4 (IL-4) into mice would stimulate antibodies against mouse eggs and render the animals infertile…The scientists chose a benign mousepox virus…[that] killed all of the mice in the study. IL-4 suppressed the immune system, making it unable to fight the mousepox virus. With no defensive launched by the immune system the virus was 100 percent lethal. The virus was significantly lethal even in mice vaccinated against this particular strain of mousepox. (Nowak cited in Reyes). The same technique can be used for the humans since the human smallpox is equivalent to the virus of the mousepox. Before getting their research report published, the Australian researchers seeked guidance from Australia’s Department of Defence regarding their proceedings. Jackson, one of the researchers said, “We wanted to warn the general population that this potentially dangerous technology is available. We wanted to make it clear to the scientific community that they should be careful, that it is not too difficult to create severe organisms” (Jackson cited in Nowak). This also speaks of the fact that many techniques have been brought to the attention of the concerned parties by the scientists with the positive intention of warning them against such experiments. It is hard to justify the development of nuclear weaponry by any standard of ethics until one country developed it for the first time. In the current circumstances, its development is inevitable given some countries that possess nuclear weapons can not be allowed to rule the world just because other countries don’t have them. Countries need nuclear weapons not because they want to attack others, but because they need to be sufficient in their self-defense. A nuclear war does not make anyone succeed as long as both the countries are in possession of the nuclear weapons. Even if not suddenly, many abnormalities show up eventually. Citizens of Heroshema and Nagasaki have retained the effects of nuclear war in their genes and many have thus lost the tendency to give birth to normal children. International treaties to outlaw the biological weapons have surfaced from time to time first in 1925 and then in 1972, yet they could not suffice to limit the development of biological weapons or halt the research concerning offensive weapons anywhere (Frischknecht). In order to alter the research and experimentation practices for the better, US and some other countries have proposed that a code of ethics be made that particularly guides the practices of researchers that deal with lethal toxins and pathogens. The code must require the scientists to proactively assess the implications of their research and abandon or redirect it if the implications are potentially dangerous. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) carried out a research in 2002 to find out the number of scientific institutes all over the globe that possessed a code of ethics (Simon cited in Reyes). As a result of the research, only 11 per cent and 12 per cent of the international and the national scientific institutes respectively were found to have their code of ethics. Had the development of weapons only caused loss to the mankind, they would have been downright condemned rather than controversial, but history provides evidence that weapons have helped nations safeguard their rights and protect their lands. Where the research on radiology has enabled humans to find the treatment of tumors and cancers on one hand, it has also affected the environment in the negative way on the other hand. Hence, development and use of weapons improves the life of certain people, communities or nations on the cost of others’. In such a situation, it is rational to draw a comparison between the advantages and disadvantages to realize whether the development is overall improving or ruining the world. Nevertheless, comparing the advantages with disadvantages is far easier said than done because the advantages and disadvantages can not be calculated by means of a single measure. Many factors are involved in the process and the evaluators make biased decisions that are guided by their individualistic beliefs and perceptions. Even if the present group of philosophers, educationalists, scientists and policy makers develop mutual consensus upon a certain agreement, there is little guarantee that the future generations would respect that agreement when the circumstances would have undergone an altogether change. Hence, criteria for the establishment of ethical limits upon warfare of any kind are very subjective. This is why it is said that there is no rule in war. Works Cited: Frischknecht, Friedrich. “The history of biological warfare: Human experimentation, modern nightmares and lone madmen in the twentieth century.” EMBO reports. vol. 4. no. 1. pp. 47–52. 2003. doi:10.1038/sj.embor.embor849. “History of war ethics.” BBC. 2011. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. . Nowak, Rachel. “Killer virus: An engineered mouse virus leaves us one step away from the ultimate bioweapon.” New Scientist Online News. 10 Jan. 2001. Web. 15. Oct. 2011. . Reyes, Daniel. “The Ethics of Biowarfare.” 2003. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. . Read More