|
March 2006 The Loss of Biological InnocenceAdvances in biotech present dark possibilities and an editor's dilemma. By Jason Pontin
When, if ever, should editors not publish a story they think is true, but they know is controversial? Well, if publication is dangerous or useless. That question was suggested by this month's cover story by contributing writer Mark Williams (see "The Knowledge"). Williams (for the record, my brother) spent 14 months investigating genetically engineered biological weapons. He immersed himself in their arcane biology, and he interviewed numerous scientists and security experts. But his journalistic coup was securing the candor of Serguei Popov, a former Soviet bioweaponeer. Popov described how Biopreparat, the Soviet agency that secretly developed bioweapons during the Cold War, created recombinant pathogens that produced novel symptoms. Some of those symptoms were very horrible. In one case, Popov and his researchers spliced mammalian DNA that expressed fragments of myelin protein, the insulating layer that sheathes our neurons, into Legionella pneumophila, a bacterium responsible for pneumonia. In Williams's account, "In test animals...the myelin fragments borne by the recombinant Legionella goaded the animals' immune systems to read their own natural myelin as pathogenic and to attack it. Brain damage, paralysis, and nearly 100 percent mortality resulted." But Biopreparat had more expansive ambitions than poisoning populations. The military scientists who ran the agency wanted bioweapons that could alter behavior, and they investigated using pathogens to induce memory loss, depression, or fear. This information might be of only sinister, nostalgic interest, but for Williams's thesis. He argues that the advance of biotechnology -- in particular, the technology to synthesize ever larger DNA sequences -- means that "at least some of what the Soviet bioweaponeers did with difficulty and expense can now be done easily and cheaply. And all of what they accomplished can be duplicated with time and money." Williams explains how gene-sequencing equipment bought secondhand on eBay, and unregulated biological material delivered in a FedEx package, can be misused. He concludes that terrorists could create simple weapons like Popov's myelin autoimmunity weapon, and states could engineer the more ambitious recombinant pathogens that Biopreparat contemplated. All of this is tremendously controversial. Critics within the U.S. defense community dismiss Popov's accounts of what Biopreparat achieved. Most security experts believe that creating any bioweapon -- let alone a recombinant pathogen -- is difficult, and "weaponizing" those agents is nearly impossible. And many biologists, whilst not as sanguine about the difficulties, think that a preoccupation with bioweapons is counterproductive for two reasons: first, because funding biodefense research tends to disseminate knowledge of how to develop such weapons; second, because we don't have a very good idea of how to defend ourselves against them. |
Audio »
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
The Knowledge -- Part 3
03/15/2006
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
Guest (Sly) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
If you compare biological weapon with nuclear weapon, remember that it's the USA that sent the first bomb. So biological weapon might be appealling to US military as well.
Guest (Sir Lanse) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
bow to Mecca. Will you?
They will stone gays. Will you?
They will dress women in burkas.
Do you want that?
They cannot agree on some suble issues and will kill those that do not agree with them. Who will you side with?
Guest (Sly) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
"Fear" is one of the symptoms searched for by biological weapon researchers. So may be you are already affected.
By the way USA is already using bioweapon, but they use it on their own troops in the form of pills. Like pills to stay awake longer, which have bad side effect.
Guest (Gabe) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
The only difference is that it's hard to see bioweapons as real weapons - they can come back and kill your own population too. They can also mutate and thus escape the "secret cure" the military developed. Bioweapons are useless as weapons.
Guest (Sir Lanse) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Best weapon: NATO round. Only hits one person, clean hole.
Chemicals, kill many, maim more and hits lots of civilians.
Bio may not kill any, just mutilate millions. This is not a "civilized" weapon. The goal is to stop combatants and not harm bystanders.
Guest (Dog) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
It appears the weapons may have already been deployed among the Democratic party...since maybe the 1960's.
Guest (ironman54) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
deeply troubled. What happened to the American spirit of fight back.
We can defend ourselves against the threat of these attacks and do it successfully. I think that a large part of our society has been brainwashed into believing that we are all a bunch of helpless morons
waiting for big brother government
to take care of us and defend us.
I think we do not befriend people who think us to be infidels, but to instead isolate them as to minimize their impact on us.
Guest (Gabe) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Dog) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (kitk) on 03/14/2006 at 12:00 AM
1