FEATURE ARTICLE
The Growing Threat of Biological Weapons
The terrorist threat is very real, and it's about to get worse. Scientists should concern themselves before it's too late
Steven Block
Prospects
The Clinton administration has allocated some $1.4 billion during
fiscal 2000 to combat biological and chemical terrorism, a figure
that has provoked sharp criticism in some quarters. But this number
absolutely pales in comparison with the amount spent annually on
maintaining U.S nuclear capability, which is at least 30-fold
greater. It makes eminent sense to develop improved capability
against bioweapons threats, and we should not have to wait for the
biological equivalent of Hiroshima to rally our defenses.
There are also indirect benefits associated with such an
investment??ones that nuclear spending certainly can't claim to
match. Money spent on research to develop new types of sensitive
detectors and related monitors for biowarfare agents will almost
certainly carry over to the public-health sector in the form of
rapid, improved diagnostics for disease. Money spent on coordinating
and developing emergency response teams at federal, state and local
levels will also establish better mechanisms for dealing with
natural outbreaks of emerging diseases. Money spent on innovative
surveillance approaches for detecting biowarfare attacks should also
improve medical epidemiology. Money spent on vaccine research and
delivery may help to buttress our limited capacity to protect the
civilian, as well as the military, population. And money spent on
stockpiling and positioning depots of smallpox vaccine may turn out
to be the smartest hedge-bet of all.
Since 1945, a great many physicists have taken up the challenges
posed by nuclear weaponry, and worked hard at both the national and
international level to limit their destructive potential. But with
the notable exception of a few of the old guard, such as Donald
Henderson, Joshua Lederberg and Matthew Meselson, there has been
comparatively little involvement by biologists in bioweapons issues.
The case was put best by author Richard Preston, who wrote:
The community of biologists in the United States has
maintained a kind of hand-wringing silence on the ethics of creating
bioweapons??a reluctance to talk about it with the public, even a
disbelief that it's happening. Biological weapons are a disgrace to
biology. The time has come for top biologists to assert their
leadership and speak out, to take responsibility on behalf of their
profession for the existence of these weapons and the means of
protecting the population against them, just as leading physicists
did a generation ago when nuclear weapons came along. Moral pressure
costs nothing and can help; silence is unacceptable now.
» Post Comment