Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

March 2006

The Loss of Biological Innocence

Advances in biotech present dark possibilities and an editor's dilemma.

By Jason Pontin

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

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.

[1] 2 Next »
March/April 2006

Would you like to read more articles from the March/April 2006 issue?

This article is from the March/April 2006 Issue of Technology Review. To read other articles from this issue simply register for My.TechnologyReview.com. It's free.

Subscribe today and save up to 41% »

Comments

  • Peace
    Guest (Sly) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    May be it's time to stop trying to defend against all who might attack us. And start to make friend whith people who are different from us. This is the best way to protect us from any form off threat.

    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Bow down to new masters
      Guest (Sir Lanse) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      The radical Islamics want you to
      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?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • You are infected
        Guest (Sly) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        If you want to fight radical Islamics, then meet straight ones, and give them the ability to have more exposure (ie:influence) than radical ones. If you attack them like in Irak, you will produce more ennemies whith each kill.

        "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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • what's the difference?
    Guest (Gabe) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I'm always confused by these comparisons of how "horrible" some weapons are: nuclear, chemical, and biological. What difference does it make if people die from nerve gas, a destroyed immune system or radiation disease? They are all equally horrible.

    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • The difference
      Guest (Sir Lanse) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      The difference is how much "collateral damage" occurs.
      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. 
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • An observation...
    Guest (Dog) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    "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."

    It appears the weapons may have already been deployed among the Democratic party...since maybe the 1960's.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Fight Back
      Guest (ironman54) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I've read these comments and I am
      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • ...Republicans suffer too
      Guest (Gabe) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      speaking of bioweapons altering the behavior of Democrats - perhaps it's true. But there have been side effects on the Republicans too...such as a president with an IQ below 70, a vice president who shoots people in gun sight, hallucinating about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so on and so forth...
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Free clinic
        Guest (Dog) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Dear God! They may have got you too...better go get checked out...
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • wake up will you?!
          Guest (kitk) on 03/14/2006 at 12:00 AM
          Posts:
          1
          Why is it any of this article comes as a surprise to ANYONE not pathologically adverse to the truth? I have known about much of this since at least the 80's. It was as obvious as Soviet militarization of space. Now, every nut in former Soviet client states (among others) wants the same capability.Why? Same reason: a feeling of significance and power through mass deaths of perceived enemies. Preparation, awareness, are our first line of defense.
          Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review November/December 2008
Sun + Water = Fuel
An MIT chemist has opened the way to making hydrogen fuel from water using sunlight.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology