Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement
[1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next »

March 2006

The Knowledge

Biotechnology's advance could give malefactors the ability to manipulate life processes -- and even affect human behavior.

By Mark Williams

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Editor's note: Conscious of the controversial nature of this article, Technology Review asked Allison Macfarlane, a research associate in the Science, Technology, and Global Security Working Group in MIT's Program in Science, Technology, and Society, to rebut its argument: see "Assessing the Threat." We were also careful to elide any recipes for developing a biological weapon. Such details as do appear have been published before, mainly in scientific journals.

Last year, a likable and accomplished scientist named Serguei Popov, who for nearly two decades developed genetically engineered biological weapons for the Soviet Union, crossed the Potomac River to speak at a conference on bioterrorism in Washington, DC.

Popov, now a professor at the National Center for Biodefense and Infectious Diseases at George Mason University, is tallish, with peaked eyebrows and Slavic cheekbones, and, at 55, has hair somewhere between sandy and faded ginger. He has an open, lucid gaze, and he is courteously soft-spoken. His career has been unusual by any standards. As a student in his native city of Novosibirsk, Siberia's capital, preparing his thesis on DNA synthesis, he read the latest English-language publications on the new molecular biology. After submitting his doctorate in 1976, he joined Biopreparat, the Soviet pharmaceutical agency that secretly developed biological weapons. There, he rose to become a department head in a comprehensive program to genetically engineer biological weapons. When the program was founded in the 1970s, its goal was to enhance classical agents of biological warfare for heightened pathogenicity and resistance to antibiotics; by the 1980s, it was creating new species of designer pathogens that would induce entirely novel symptoms in their victims.

In 1979, Popov spent six months in Cambridge, England, studying the technologies of automated DNA sequencing and synthesis that were emerging in the West. That English visit, Popov recently told me, needed some arranging: "I possessed state secrets, so I could not travel abroad without a special decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. A special legend, essentially, that I was an ordinary scientist, was developed for me." The cover "legend" Popov's superiors provided proved useful in 1992, after the U.S.S.R. fell. When the Russian state stopped paying salaries, among those affected were the 30,000 scientists of Biopreparat. Broke, with a family to feed, Popov contacted his British friends, who arranged funding from the Royal Society, so he could do research in the United Kingdom. The KGB (whose control was in any case limited by then) let him leave Russia. Popov never returned. In England, he studied HIV for six months. In 1993, he moved to the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, whence he sent money so that his wife and children could join him. He remained in Texas until 2000, attracting little interest.

"When I came to Texas, I decided to forget everything," Popov told me. "For seven years I did that. Now it's different. It's not because I like talking about it. But I see every day in publications that nobody knows what was done in the Soviet Union and how important that work was."

Yet if Popov's appearance last year at the Washington conference is any indication, it will be difficult to convince policymakers and scientists of the relevance of the Soviet bioweaponeers' achievements. It wasn't only that Popov's audience in the high-ceilinged chamber of a Senate office building found the Soviets' ingenious applications of biological science morally repugnant and technically abstruse. Rather, what Popov said lay so far outside current arguments about biodefense that he sounded as if he had come from another planet.

[1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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

  • The Knowledge Bioweapons Article
    Guest (eldestdeev) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Superb piece, superbly told.  One hopes the government is secretly far ahead of public knowledge in combatting or pre-empting this.  Otherwise, massive death can be the only forseeable result.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Pandora's Box
      Guest (Gary Percer) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Like Pandora's box, once the technology is disseminated, it cannot be re-gathered.

      Like Pandora's box, the box will be opened because of the nature of the human being.

      Like Pandora's box, we will suffer the consequences for all time.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Pandora's box
        Guest (Ueberluser) on 05/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Yes, that may very well be the case.
        It may also be that case that these technologies could save the entire race from a yet to be determined threat and as such would be a nessecary evil. Not that nessecary evils won't kill us all anyway...
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • Pathogens are not weapons
      Guest (Andreas) on 03/21/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      This otherwise very good article only briefly touches the considerable difficulty of creating weapons from pathogens. While it concludes that biological agents will most probably be used in warfare, it completely omits a discussion of the effectiveness of biological weapons in war, which is probably not very good. Presumably the reason why biological weapons have never been used is that they simply are not that more damaging than conventional ones, but way more difficult to target. The same is probably true for chemical weapons, which have been used to some extent.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Biological Weapons Have Been Used
        Guest (AP) on 04/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Dear Sir - biological weapons have been used in war - one of the best examples is the use of small pox by the British during the French-Indian War, and other examples, historically documented, by US Forces against Native American groups - again, generally, small pox infected blankets.

        Also, note - I think you argument is valid, except, when you are dealing with asymetric warfare and terrorist agents - either domestic or foreign, given the fact that the rules of engagement are no longer binding, and you are dealing with zero-sum game theory. 

        Also, note - salmonella was actively used in the Dalles, Oregon in early 1980s to de-stabilize an entire town in order to effect political outcome of vote, and as well to target specific individuals.
        Rate this comment: 12345
      • Pathogens are not weapons?
        Guest (Frank) on 07/25/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Who says they haven't been used successfully? The last stage of the Black Plague in 1352 began during a biological, abeit cure one, in the Crimea of Russia. Before 1906 and the Sino-Russian war most of the deaths in all wars were attributed to disease. The South used biological warfare during the American civil war by contaminating the water supply of Norhern troops with dead animals. Typhus nearly wiped out Napoleon's army before it ever got to Moscow in 1812 and was responsible for 75% of the deaths in his army and his return to Poland set off a massive typhus epidemic that went as far as the English Channel.
        Rate this comment: 12345
    • DNA
      Guest (shri) on 05/03/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      The society is ultimately responsible. The Governments pof countries must co-operate
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • E coli o157
    Guest (richard katz) on 03/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    how come even in long articles like this nobody EVER mentions E coli o157 as a biowarfare agent? not only has it been used that way, successfully, but it sure looks like it was made in the recombinant mode that this article is all about.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • E coli 157
      Guest (Frank Lowe) on 07/25/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Check former research into HIV/AIDS in the 1980's. They studied it then.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Other equally or more important questions
    Guest (Alan Root) on 03/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    How do we identify and extinguish those features of our brains that impel us in self-destructive directions? Let's minimize the threats from asteroids coming at us from outer space! Let's maximize the threats from inner space! We need to reprogram our brains and our genes...
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Assume the Worst, Work Backward
      Guest (AP) on 04/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Is there is anyone on this listing activly pursuing this issue? I have a research problem associated with assuming that these agents exists, and planning response.  I can't afford as per tasking to argue about whether or not the Soviets did this, or did that. I must assume they did, and deal with both foreign and domestic continued threat and release. 

      I also can't afford to assume that new technologies will save us. 

      I am willing to dialogue in other modes.

      AP
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • In the event that there is no defense...
    Guest (Shane) on 04/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    In the event that western civilization has no defense against such a threat, we rely on intelligence to alert us to the threat.  If any credible threat is uncovered...I daresay that we may live to see a pre-emptive tactical solution.  On what scale?  I think that would depend on the accuracy and detail of the intelligence.

    If we are successfully attacked on a global scale by a bioengineered pathogen that can spread from human to human and retains its' genetic sequence so it doesn't mutate out of its' weaponized form... well, let's just hope we don't see that day.  If we do, let me be one of the victims because I don't want to live in the kind of world that would follow such an event.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • The Knowledge article
    Guest (Guran Walker) on 04/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    The point was made, inferior military regimes resort successfully to the most potent weapon they can find - always. Now we draw near God in our molecular tinkering will the angels save us or destroy us? Scripture indicates they will seed the winds. But I feel this is only one of the scurges to be suffered by our Race. Nice to have the 'heads up' on the state-of-play. Sublimely written heh.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • My brief response to the article
    Guest (Robert Carlson) on 04/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    http://synthesis.typepad.com/synthesis/2006/03/the_knowledge.html
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review July/August 2008
The Business of Social Networks
The future of the Web is social. But can social-networking sites ever make money?
•  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
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology