Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement

March 2006

The Knowledge

Continued from page 6

By Mark Williams

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

No one knows when such hypothetical weapons will be real. But since Popov left Russia, the range and power of biotechnological tools for manipulating genetic control circuits have grown. A burgeoning revolution in "targeting specificity" (targeting is the process of engineering molecules to recognize and bind to particular types of cells) is creating new opportunities in pharmaceuticals; simultaneously, it is advancing the prospects for chemical and biological weapons. Current research is investigating agents that target the distinct biochemical pathways in the central nervous system and that could render people sedate, calm, or otherwise incapacitated. All that targeting specificity could, in principle, also be applied to biological weapons.

The disturbing scope of the resulting possibilities was alluded to by George Poste, former chief scientist at SmithKline Beecham and the sometime chairman of a task force on bioterrorism at the U.S. Defense Department, in a speech he gave to the National Academies and the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, in January 2003. According to the transcript of the speech, Poste recalled that at a recent biotech conference he had attended a presentation on agents that augment memory: "A series of aged rats were paraded with augmented memory functions.... And some very elegant structural chemistry was placed onto the board.... Then with the most casual wave of the hand the presenter said, "Of course, modification of the methyl group at C7 completely eliminates memory. Next slide, please.'"

Basement Biotech
The age of bioweaponeering is just dawning: almost all of the field's potential development lies ahead.

The recent report by the National Academies described many unpleasant scenarios: in addition to psychotropic pathogens, the academicians imagine the misuse of "RNA interference" to perturb gene expression, of nanotechnology to deliver toxins, and of viruses to deliver antibodies that could target ethnic groups.

This last is by no means ridiculous. Microbiologist Mark Wheelis at the University of California, Davis, who works with the Washington-based Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, notes in an article for Arms Control Today, "Engineering an ethnic-specific weapon targeting humans is...difficult, as human genetic variability is very high both within and between ethnic groups...but there is no reason to believe that it will not eventually be possible."

But commentators have focused on speculative perils for decades. While the threats they describe are plausible, dire forecasts have become a ritual -- a way to avoid more immediate problems. Already, in 2006, much could be done.

Popov's myelin autoimmunity weapon could be replicated by bioterrorists. It would be no easy feat: while the technological requirements are relatively slight, the scientific knowledge required is considerable. At the very least, terrorists would have to employ a real scientist as well as lab technicians trained to manage DNA synthesizers and tend pathogens. They would also have to find some way to disperse their pathogens. The Soviet Union "weaponized" biological agents by transforming them into fine aerosols that could be sprayed over large areas. This presents engineering problems of an industrial kind, possibly beyond the ability of any substate actor. But bioterrorists might be willing to infect themselves and walk through crowded airports and train stations: their coughs and sniffles would be the bombs of their terror campaign.

Difficult as it may still be, garage-lab bioengineering is getting easier every year. In the vanguard of those who are calling attention to biotechnology's potential for abuse is George Church, Harvard Medical School Professor of Genetics. It was Church who announced in December 2004 that his research team had developed a new high-throughput synthesizer capable of constructing in one pass a DNA molecule 14,500 bases long.

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 September/October 2008
How Obama Really Did It
Social technology helped bring him to the brink of the presidency.
•  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

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology