Advances in Bio-weaponry

kjh1 writes "Technology Review is running an eye-opening article on how biotechnology has advanced to the point where producing bio-weapons that were once only possible with the backing of governments with enormous resources is now possible with equipment purchased off eBay. You can now purchase a mini-lab of equipment for less than $10,000. The writer also interviewed a former Soviet bioweaponeer, Serguei Popov, who worked at the Biopreparat, the Soviet agency that secretly developed biological weapons. Popov has since moved to the US and provided a great deal of information on the types of weapons the Soviets were developing."

Comments

Oh goody

[AoT]

And I don't even trust the people who have access to bio-warfare now.

Re:Oh goody

[TubeSteak]

While I know the U.S. does wonderful things to advance the sciences (some sciences), the fact that this guy is a Russian reminds me that the U.S. has had help.

First, it was the Germans. After the U.S. kicked around Germany, they poached German scientists so that the U.S. could have access to all the interesting things the Germans had been working on. Rinse and repeat after WWII.

Then Soviet Russia collapsed and the U.S. took in mobs of poor, unpaid Russia scientists + the research that they've been working on.

It's arguable that those three infusions of know-how and brain-power have put the U.S. where it is today. There are a lot of things the 'other guy' did first, before the U.S. took it and tried to make it better.

Which is basically what Asia has been doing to the U.S. these days. They're getting the benefit of scientists in the microbiology fied who would normally be working for America, because the Asian countries have less restrictions on funding and research.

Re:Oh goody

[arivanov]

You should not.

Everyone and his dog has access to bioweapon design and production capabilities. Once you have got your hands on a sample of virulent bacteria like Antrax producing them is a piece of cake. Viruses are considerably more tricky but it is still feasible to produce the less fussy ones with student lab level equipment. Actually with viruses your biggest problem would be isolation, not production.

So far so good, here everyone would ask why all the dictator wannabies and terrorists are not slugging each other with biowarfare?

Well the answer is simple, while producing bioweapons can be done in a garage, producing a viable delivery system is something much more difficult. Testing it is even more difficult. This is clearly beyond the capabilities of most terrorists and dictatorships out there. And thanks $DEITY, otherwise we all would have been walking around wearing filter masks and wearing biowarfare suits on public transport.

worried?

[joe 155]

I wouldn't worry about terrorist implications of this, it is actually very difficult for a group without large resources (and even for those with them) to create workable weapons of mass destruction and bioweaponry would deffinately fall into this catergory... From a journal article i read by J. Mueller in Terrorism and Political Violence (vol.17:487-505, 2005)

Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese cult that had some three hundred scientists in its employ and an estimated budget of $1 billion, reportedly tried at least nine times over five years to set off biological weapons by spraying pathogens from trucks and wafting them from rooftops, hoping fancifully to ignite an apocalyptic war. These efforts failed to create a single fatality--in fact, nobody even noticed that the attacks had taken place.

Re:worried?

[hazem]

According to a report on the CDC website (http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no4/olson.htm), 12 people died in the attack on the subway.

By the end of that day, 15 subway stations in the world's busiest subway system had been affected. Of these, stations along the Hbiya line were the most heavily affected, some with as many as 300 to 400 persons involved. The number injured in the attacks was just under 3,800. Of those, nearly 1,000 actually required hospitalization--some for no more than a few hours, some for many days. A very few are still hospitalized. And 12 people were dead.

Re:worried?

[thedletterman]

That billion was spent paying scientists, not buying lab equipment. I could likely use my local university chemistry lab to engineer bio weapons.. given the right materials and technical knowledge.

Re:worried?

[good soldier svejk]

That sounds like a problem with the attack vector, not with the material.

Well, yes and no. You are correct that the followers of Bhagwan Rajneesh hit upon a more effective delivery system when they simply sprayed salmonella salad bars. But salmonella did not prove sufficiently lethal. Although they infected hundreds and hospitalized 45, nobody died. Antharx, OTOH could not have been deliveed by the same mechanism. There is a balance of deadliness, controlability and deliverability which is difficult to strike. Military research has concentrated on aerosolizeable pathogens like Anthrax, for obvious reasons.

Basically, it is much easier to make effective and deliverable chemical weapons. Look at Iraq. On short notice, they deployed and used thousands of tons of nerve and mustard gas during the Iran-Iraq war. But they never managed to aerosolize Anthrax or deploy any useable biological weapons. And they had help from the US.

Move Along

[dteichman2]

Nothing to see here. Good article, but the point made is fairly worthless. Technology is getting better and cheaper. Why is it suprising that it should extend to the field of biotech? If the dude next door wants to whack you, I don't think that he needs to produce a virus to do it. I'm pretty sure that guns are still more economical and efficient for personal enterprise of this sort.

Re:Ten grand?

[temojen]

Can of tuna packed in oil $0.65 . Garden soil: free. Warm spot on top of your refrigerator: free

Some way to aerosolize the resulting cocktail of anthrax and botulotoxin: ... I have no idea. Maybe that's where the $9999.35 comes in.

Re:That was the first and only...

[killjoe]

It doesn't have to be effective. If they did it five times and killed one person each time the population would be effectively terrorized. The purpose of terrorism isn't to kill people per-se. It's to scare them into some sort of action. Most people are perfectly happy to let any situation ride as long as it doesn't effect their daily lives. The terrorists seeks to effect the daily life of a fat dumb and happy or at least create the perception of the effect.

benifit/cost

[fermion]

Except in the case of truly irrational people, for the purpose of killing people, history tells us that the simplest tool will be used, and complexity is only introduced to minimize risk. For example, any crazy can go into a crowded place and kill several people prior to succumbing to the same fate. Likewise, a person may plant a conventional bomb and do significant damage. Certainly we have seen few cases where 'mass destruction' is caused by the use of biological agent by non-governmental foces. Even the Anthrax in the mail scare caused no more damagae than the unibomber, and that anthrax may have been top grade US governement.

So here is the rub. One not only has to have the equipment and expertise to create the biowepon. One also needs a way to infect people in lethal doses. And, to begin with, one needs to believe the bioagent will be more effecient than conventional weapons. Look at it this way. The allies probably did more damage in Dresden using conventional weapons that in Japan using nukes. However, the Japan attack was much more effecient, posed almost no risk to the Allies, had no real defense, and was not limited by the logistics of flying many planes. For a bioagent to be preferable, it must be like a nuke. If Bush is to believed the Iraqis have a bunch of biological agents, yet we see bombs are used more. Perhpas the Iragis to have WMDs, and bombs are just so much more effecient and dramatic. I mean proving to the US forces that defending against IEDs is hopeless to so mouch more dramatic than simply killing everyone in the green zone with lead poisoning, for instance.

This seems like another fear mongering article planted to create an impression that certain not-so-dangerous things are critical, so that the complex really dangerous things can be ignored. It just shows a true lack of imagination. I tink in most cases the villians just want the drama. That is why they blow up the building after it is evacated, instead of blowing up the location to which the people are evacuated to.

Re:That was the first and only...

[JDevers]

While I understand your sentiment, professionally designed WMDs can be very dangerous and are very effective. Tell me that a 10 kiloton nuke couldn't kill thousands of people with almost no planning and hundreds of thousands with only a marginal plan. There is a big difference between a terrorist organization and a government though. There isn't just the money, there is the rationale and expertise. Terrorists want to be showy, if it isn't scary to think about it isn't terrorism. Governments don't really care about being showy (well, they do, but in the large political scale not in the "every shot counts" way). A crate of CO2 tubes let go in a dense subway tunnel would kill a lot more than 12 people, but it isn't nearly as scary as a sarin gas attack. Just like the concept of a suitcase nuke is so much more scary the the one in the back of a semi truck. It takes top notch engineering to make a small and clean nuke, it takes a library card, some electricians, and some uranium to make a bigger and dirty one.

I want to add an addendum that I personally don't lose sleep over the threat of a terrorist attack. More people die every day in car wrecks or from heart attacks than in any terrorist attack. While I eat a pretty healthy diet, I drive rush hour traffic every day and don't drive slow. My risk from that is about a thousand times worse than any sort of terrorist attack, especially if I were to figure in that I don't exactly live in a top 10 list of potential targets (or top 1000 for that matter). I just wish more people would think about the simple statistics instead of the "fear factor" and terrorists would be out of the proverbial job.

Nukes are a different thing entirely

[Goonie]

Correction - it takes some highly enriched uranium, a library card, and an electrician to make a nuclear weapon.

Making HEU is a very difficult task; Zippe-type centrifuges can't be put together in your back shed. More plausibly, they could steal it or buy it on the black market, but even that's going to be very difficult.

WMD's are a bogus category, in my opinion, draw a bogus analogy between nukes, which genuinely can kill tens of thousands of people at a shot without any great operational genius, and chemical and biological weapons, which seem to be very hard to make that lethal, even though theoretically they can be.

Re:Nukes are a different thing entirely

[khallow]

if you include "Dirty" bombs in the Nuclear category, then things are far, far simpler... some radioactive material(ground up into small particles), some explosives, a fuse, and a timing device are all you require to strike absolute terror into any major city... Sensible terrorists will NOT use this option as they know they will be hunted down and terminated with extreme predjudice... however, there are some absolutely fanatics out there now who WILL use this if they believe it suits their ends...

But you shouldn't because dirty bombs aren't that effective. I know half the people on this thread talk up the "terror" angle, but I think the effects are overrated. Plus after a few radiological bombs, they'll lose their terror value. A fission bomb can vaporize a small city. There currently is no other weapon with that kind of power. That incidentally is going to provide terror value that won't go away.

Re:That was the first and only...

[Jeremi]

I personally don't lose sleep over the threat of a terrorist attack.

I lose sleep over the political/societal reaction to the terrorist attack. You think that civil rights in this country were damaged by 9/11? Imagine what the response would be like to, say, Chicago getting hit by a tactical nuke. Sealed borders? Concentration camps? Apocalyptic cults? Economic crash? Fundamentalist/reactionary politics? I think the secondary damage would almost certainly outweigh the primary damage by an order of magnitude. For an example, compare the money and lives that were lost on 9/11 to the money and lives that were lost to the political reaction to 9/11.

Fear makes people (and societies) do stupid things.

Affordable science tools is a GOOD thing!

[Anonymous Coward]

There a MANY people interested in science that simply cannot afford the tools to pursue it.
Cheap scientific tools means more tools in the hands of science tinkerers.
The more science tinkerers, means more interest, innovation, and new businesses in science.
THIS IS A GOOD THING!

If science tinkerers with affordable tools can get an open-science movement going (like programers have done with open-source), then we have a very bright future ahead of us.

FUD, like the mentioned article, are simply words of someone trying to stop innovation and destroy economies.

Re:at last

[simpleparadox]

and yours informative

Scientists and Public Responsibility

[LotTS]

This is the classic dilemma regarding responsibilities with the impact on humanity from scientific advancements. Who has it now? Who should have it?

In the classic days of Leonardo da Vinci, the Renaissance Man was the master of everything and was on top of many topics of interest. However, many modern achievements have been realized through specialists - science, engineering, agriculture, arts, etc... It would not be fair for a world-class scientist to be responsible for establishing the policy guidelines of a new technology. Their main concern is and should be to advance the frontiers of science - their opinions should carry weight regarding policy, but in general they are not adept with such responsibilities.

In the absence of an appropriate entity with this responsibility, the lack of oversight may lead to unwanted outcomes. Einstein's revelations made the atomic bomb feasible, yet afterwards Einstein was one of the biggest opponents of nuclear arms. As someone who is in biotechnology, I know that we may have social responsibility on the back of our minds, but in the forefront is finding that discovery before someone else in our field finds it first!

Bill Joy and others saw this years ago

[schwag monkey]

Bill Joy's well-known article "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" predicted this like 6 years ago:

http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy. html

The big quesiton is: why aren't the intelligent, well-educated, technically minded of the world actually taking issues like this seriously, and doing something about it? Probably because thinking about this stuff means questioning one's own vocation and existence, and perhaps discovering that the blind pursuit of scientific knowledge or development of technology can have just as many unintended bad consequences as good ones. We can't stop these pursuits; nor should we. But all who are involved in these pursuits must also assume responsibility for analyzing the risks of their application.

Bill Joy called for a "Hippocratic Oath" of sorts for scientists and technologists to take responsibility for the ethical concerns as well as the scientific or technological or design concerns. We already know how to assess some forms of risk. These are just different kinds of risks to be assessed, and they are real.

If we are as good and as smart as we think we are, how can we not step up?

Re:Bill Joy and others saw this years ago

[Shihar]

You can't stop science.

This isn't like a video game where you need to go down the 'horrible biological weapons' research tree in order to get horrible biological weapons. The same technology that lets you engineer a crop that can end world hunger or create new organs from scratch is the same path that leads to horrible weapons. You can't simply pick the good over the bad. By advancing forward you WILL uncover the bad and make available the tools to do terrible things. The only option you have left is to either grind to a technological standstill or simply do your best to fend off dangers as they come.

The only way to stop technology is to put in place a world wide totalitarian government that ruthlessly enforces 'sustainable' living and the freeze of technology. By "sustainable", I don't mean the crunchy American tree hugger version that involves eating a lot of soy and riding a bike while still enjoying central heating and electricity. I mean brutal Maoist style raw utilitarianism that merrily sheds lives in favor of the higher goal of a "sustainable" society out our present technology level.

This of course is an utter impossibility. Our system is like a shark. It moves forward or we all die. No little tweaks on society is going to make it so that we can maintain this state of technology forever. We will run out of resources and technology will either have an answer waiting or everything collapses.

The only answer is to cross your fingers and hope to hell that a Kurzweil utopia is right around the corner. The best thing we can do now is try and build defense when it is possible and blindly sprint forward hoping to hell that somewhere along the way an answer jumps out before something terrible happens.

Re:That was the first and only...

[Mac Degger]

"The purpose of terrorism isn't to kill people per-se. It's to scare them into some sort of action."

This is so true. Look at Osama bin Laden. After 911, the USA took EXACTLY the actions which were his stated aims. I'm still flabberghasted that this worked, and that the population hasn't raised a single question about that. Then again, you would be surprised to find out that transcripts of the OBL tapes are not that easy to find.

Re:That was the first and only...

[ultranova]

Stopping terorism is about finding something they care about and destroying it and thus making the war painfull of them as well.

No. If you do that, there's going to be an endless line of recruits ready to give their lives in order to kill you in revenge.

If you want to stop terrorism, make sure that the potential terrorists have lots to live for - wife, kids, dogs, full stomachs, a comfortable and secure life. Misery feeds fanaticism, especially since you aren't giving up all that much by blowing yourself up; a happy, comfortable life makes you think anyone who tells you to kill yourself is a dangerous nutcase.

You can never win a war against terrorism, since the harder you fight, the stronger your enemy becomes. However, you can make your enemy lose his will to fight by giving him something to lose.

People who's life is hell are all too willing to exchange it for the promised heaven; people who's life is peacefull, secure and comfortable see no reason to hurry there. Evil breeds evil and violence feeds violence; peace and prosperity can only be had by making sure that your neighbours have them as well.