Science and Prohibited Weapons

Abstract

T his year, on 17 June, the Geneva Protocol, an international treaty prohibiting the use of asphyxiating or poisonous gases and bacteriological methods of warfare, turned 80 years of age. It was fostered in part by a 1918 appeal in which the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) described the use of poisonous gas against soldiers as a "barbarous invention which science is bringing to perfection." Great peacetime advances in chemistry before the First World War made possible the manufacture and use of chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas on the battlefield. The ICRC foresaw "a struggle the ferocity of which will exceed the greatest barbarity the world has known." The 20th century witnessed a continuous accumulation of potential biological and chemical weapons in many nations. Some of these weapons were deployed; for example, in Abyssinia in the 1930s, in China in World War II, in Yemen in 1963, and in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. This gave the impetus to two important international legal regimes: the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). These treaties extended the Geneva Protocol's prohibition beyond mere use to include the development, production, and transfer of all such weapons. The scientific community now faces difficult questions. Major advances in chemistry, microbiology, and nuclear physics have, regrettably, led to hostile use of the knowledge and materials from these scientific domains; a use that the original scientistdiscoverers would have deplored. What will be the outcome for humanity if the results of the research explosion in life sciences and biotechnology are also turned to hostile use? What are the associated responsibilities of scientists? Scientists in academia and government recognize that advances in the life sciences and biotechnology could make biological weapons more effective, safer to use, more difficult to detect, and therefore more attractive options for would-be users. The dangers lie in both bioterrorism and in government-backed programs, and robust international mechanisms are required to deter the development, production, transfer, and use of these weapons. This provides the background to the numerous conferences this year discussing biosecurity and for the meeting of experts at the BWC this month in Geneva that is examining proposed codes of conduct for scientists. These discussions take place against a history of societal norms against biological and chemical weapons that reaches back much further than the 1925 Geneva Protocol. The current treaties represent the development and codification of rules and taboos that for thousands of years have protected people from poisoning and the deliberate spreading of disease. Both Greek and Roman civilizations customarily observed a prohibition on the use of poisons. In 500 B.C., the Manu treaty in India banned such weapons. A millennium later, regulations on the conduct of war drawn from the Koran by the Saracens forbade poisoning. These examples demonstrate that recent treati...

Animal Models That Best Reproduce the Clinical Manifestations of Human Intoxication with Organophosphorus Compounds

“…These nerve agents have been stockpiled and used as weapons of mass destruction in chemical warfare and in terrorist attacks against civilians. The death toll and poor health outcomes of the alleged use of sarin against civilians in Damascus, Syria, as recently as August 2013, and the catastrophic results of the use of tabun or sarin during the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937)(1938)(1939)(1940)(1941)(1942)(1943)(1944)(1945), the 1980s Iraq-Iran conflict, and the 1990s terrorist attacks in Japan are well documented (Romano and King, 2001;Coupland and Leins, 2005;Tucker, 2006;Dolgin, 2013;Patrick et al, 2013; http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/ Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf).…”

Effective countermeasure against poisoning by organophosphorus insecticides and nerve agents

“…T he organophosphorus (OP) compounds soman, sarin, VX, and tabun, referred to as nerve agents, are among the most lethal chemical weapons ever developed (1). Some of them were used with catastrophic results in wars and also in terrorist attacks in Japan in the 1990s (2).…”

The combination of huperzine A and imidazenil is an effective strategy to prevent diisopropyl fluorophosphate toxicity in mice

“…The therapeutic strategy of using this combination of IMI and HUP offers an excellent prophylactic tool against OP exposure because of its long-lasting action and the lack of unwanted side effects when given to healthy subjects. The prophylactic use of this treatment is particularly advisable for those workers who are at risk for being accidentally exposed to OP substances, including farmers or military personnel during war actions (1,2). Of course, this treatment would become extremely useful for civilians in the case of terrorist attacks.…”

“…O rganophosphate (OP) neurotoxins are among the most lethal chemical poisons ever developed and in the present political climate, should be considered possible threats to both civilians and military personnel in terrorist attacks (1,2).…”