Bioterrorism and Bioethics

The point of my last post was not so much to discount the modern terrorist phenomenon as to point out that we need to come to terms with it and combat it rationally. The use of airplanes and bombs is dramatic, but in the end those have limited destructive potential. However, the idea that terrorists might get their hands on chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons is pretty disturbing. We should have people and policies aimed at preventing terror in general, but especially in those areas. I don’t think 9/11 “changed everything”, but it was a hell of a wake-up call.

To anyone interested in bioterrorism policy, I recommend this editorial in Genetic Engineering News. (Careful, as with most prose written by scientists, it gets dry. Of course, so do I.) A few excerpts:

The misuse of biological research is increasingly becoming a prominent policy concern. In addition to the biosafety and biosecurity regulations currently in place to oversee biological research, it is now argued that measures are also needed to prevent the techniques developed and knowledge generated from being misused.

The discussions on codes can be traced to a November 2001 White House statement endorsing a solid framework for bioscientists in the form of a code of ethical conduct that would have universal recognition.

This was reiterated shortly thereafter by John Bolton, the then Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, at the Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention, who said, a professional code of conduct for scientists
working with pathogenic microorganisms [is critical and timely].

It’s a rare day, but I agree with John Bolton. The libertarian in me hates the idea of licensing or tracking people, but there should be a way of identifying those with the requisite skills to produce chemical or biological weapons. Locksmiths get bonded because they carry around lockpicks, yet we have no way of knowing who routinely work with viruses.

By itself, a code doesn’t accomplish too much. A code of ethics is unlikely to deter terrorists, but a code of conduct might make people think a little more carefully about the research they publish. For example:

This could then be supplemented by a review of experiments involving biological agents that raise concern about their potential for misuse. The report identified seven experiments of concern, including those that would enhance the virulence of a pathogen and demonstrate how to render a vaccine ineffective. The review of experiments would be added on to the already established NIH system for reviewing recombinant DNA experiments through local institutional biosafety committees.

Despite urban myth, I don’t think you can actually download plans for a nuclear weapon from the internet. Even if you could, you certainly couldn’t build it because it takes a whole lot of resources to make a nuke. The genetic blueprints for most viruses, however are accessible, and a virus could be manufactured for less money than it takes to send 4 guys to flight school. Then there’s the paper on how to render a vaccine ineffective. That particular paper is notorious. The authors might as well have titled it “How to circumvent the immune system…just thought everyone should know.” It’s fast in the running for least responsible thing ever published.

I think this is an issue worth following. Osama’s new tape alludes to new attacks "They are in the planning stages, and you will see them in the heart of your land as soon as the planning is complete." A bomb attack is sucky, but I’d sooner see 1000 of them than one suicidal terrorist sneezing immune-system-evading smallpox into salad bars.

Anyway, I’ll keep you posted if anyone asks me to sign an ethics code.