US moves into emerging bioweapon era

The danger is that it may be only a short step from developing chemical and biological agents that enhance US soldier's performance from those that degrade enemy troops. In fact, the potential for overlap in the research leaves some experts worried.

"It would be difficult to argue that military performance enhancers violate any treaties," says Edward Hammond, director of the Sunshine Project in Austin, Tex., a research center that investigates biological and chemical weapons in the US and Europe. "But their widespread use would lower the threshold for use of chemical weapons, particularly psychoactive substances, in conflict."

"If enhancing yourself is routine," Mr. Hammond asks, "how large a step would it be to chemically 'diminish' or 'de- enhance' your enemy?"

What seems likely is that the science of such advanced weaponry soon could outpace anything envisioned in arms control treaties – if it hasn't already.

"There is a profound revolution underway in biology," says Mark Wheelis, a microbiologist at the University of California, Davis. "The same tools that are revolutionizing drug discovery can be used to discover novel biochemical agents for the purpose of weaponization." This could even include genetically engineered biological weapons designed to attack things like camouflage paint, stealth coatings, and electronic insulation – an area of research sought by the Navy and the Air Force.

"I can understand the military infatuation with these technologies," Dr. Wheelis said. "There's a clear tactical utility to these weapons," he said. "But they come with a cost and the cost is largely in the area of arms control and we'd better be sure we want to pay that price before we actually do it."

In any case, Wheelis writes in a recent report for the Monterey Institute of International Studies, that "the technical landscape of chemical and biological arms control is rapidly changing."

There is no doubt that the Pentagon is canvassing this landscape to craft defensive responses to potential enemy use of these weapons against US soldiers. But they may also be looking at these weapons for their own interests, as a way of defeating terrorists or other enemies as well.

"In principle, bioengineering is on some level just an information processing problem," says John Pike, head of GlobalSecurity.org in Alexandria, Virginia, which researches and analyzes national security issues. "And how much longer will [it take] before the information processing required for shake-and-bake bioengineering starts to become easily within the reach of a bright lunatic?"

"I don't know the answers to any of these questions," says Mr. Pike. "But I reasonably assume that the US government would like to get these answers many years before anyone else has them."

At least some answers may emerge this week when the National Academy of Sciences is expected to issue a report on non-lethal weapons.

As required under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, the US is working to rid itself of millions of bombs, rockets, spray tanks, and other weapons containing nerve gas, blistering agents, and other deadly chemicals.

The newest of those weapons date back to 1968 (when the US stopped making them) and some are remnants of World War II, which means that many are leaking toxic substances.

At several federal government sites around the country, such weapons are being incinerated.

The process has had some technical problems causing leaks and other safety issues, and there have been delays tied to lawsuits challenging the program. For example, the Army's Umatilla Chemical Depot in Oregon has been preparing to burn more than 7 million pounds of Cold War-era chemical weapons stored in concrete bunkers.

But a lawsuit brought by a coalition of environmental groups that is now being heard in state court alleges that incineration is not a safe method of disposal.

Getting rid of old chemical weapons, it seems, is just as controversial as the prospect of developing new ones.

Page: 1 | 2