Gomez 1

Are there benefits to biological warfare agents?

Nayla Gomez

Advanced Placement Laureate Candidate

Palmetto Ridge High School

Collier County Public Schools

1/24/2019
 Gomez 2

When discussing the controversy between the different roles and the ideas that have been

placed upon biological warfare (BW) agents, there is often disagreement due to the confusion

between their possible utility versus how they have been utilized. Concerning this conflict, many

claim that BW agents are just suited for harmful intentions due to their potential for mass

destruction and their previous utilization in events such as, biological terrorism. However, others

argue that how they have been utilized does not thereby define their utilization abilities

considering they also have many beneficial aspects. Globally, countries need to evaluate the

different benefits and consequences that BW agents can potentially cause in order to understand

if they have the potential to be more beneficial than detrimental.

Defining Biological Terms

In order to understand the arguments made from the different perspectives, a basic knowledge

of biological terms is required. Firstly, we need to consider what biological agents are and what

their definitions entail. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) says that biological agents are

substances made from live organisms or the products of them. These agents according to the NCI

are used for disease prevention, diagnosis, or treatment of diseases and can also be used for the

making of antibodies, interleukins, and vaccines. That being said, biological agents can equally

be used for the making of harmful weapons through proper genetic engineering. This is where

biological warfare comes in. The United States Legal Incorporated or “US Legal Inc.” says that

biological warfare or germ warfare is the modification of biological agents, such as bacteria or

fungi, to produce biological warfare agents. They are distributed in different ways; some include

ballistic missiles and/or airplanes for the intention of incapacitating humans. Biological warfare

according to US Legal Inc. has three major forms, “deliberate poisoning of food and water with

infectious material; [using] microorganisms, toxins or animals, living or dead, in a weapon

 Gomez 3

system; and [using] biologically inoculated fabrics”. While these agents can be modified for

good use such as for creating vaccines, they can also be modified for intentional destruction.

Another way biological agents are created is through natural occurrences, this is primarily the

part of the argument that claims biological agents’ harmful consequences are too high to consider

their beneficial use. The article entitled “Bioaerosols” says that the agents can be formed from

nearly any process involving biological materials, which are as the article “Biological Materials

Information” explains, compatible to “comprise a whole part of a living structure”. These agents

made through natural occurrences are called biological aerosols or bioaerosols. So then again,

through any process that either involves these biological materials and/or generates “enough

energy to separate small particles from the larger substance” (“Bioaerosols”) like wind and

water, can cause them to be formed naturally and dispersed on their own. According to the article

“Bioaerosols”, bioaerosols live in sources like soil, plants, animals, water, and even humans

which is why the article states that many claim biological agents to be too harmful considering

their ability for causing fatality and the fact that all of the sources bioaerosols live in are present

everywhere globally.

Contrary to that, the other part of the argument claims that biological agents can be used for

beneficial use through the previously mentioned modification of agents for the production of

vaccines and other medical utilities. Which according to the Norwegian University of Science

and Technology is just the engineering of genes, properly termed “biological technology” or

“biotechnology”. Biological technology is “technology that uses biological systems” like

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA). DNA according to Olivia Waring,

stands for “deoxyribonucleic acid [, which] is one of [the] two main nucleic acid[s;] the other

being RNA”. To better understand what biotechnology is, the University of Norway states the
 Gomez 4

“traditional” example of biotechnology which is the brewing and the baking of bread. “Such

traditional processes usually utilize the living organisms in their natural form, while the more

modern form of biotechnology will generally involve a more advanced modification of the

biological system or organism”. In addition to that, the evolution of engineering as well as

sufficient research in biotechnology altogether resulted in the “new possibility to make changes

in the organisms' DNA” (University of Norway). So because of this, biotechnology is now used

for many different branches such as genetics, biological chemistry, molecular biology, medicine,

and more. Along with these benefits comes a variety of risks stated in the article “Benefits &

Risks of Biotechnology” by Jeff Bessen and the Future of Life Institute. Bessen et al. states that

because microorganisms like bacteria are difficult to detect there are several hazards that can be

caused by them. The “engineered cells could divide on their own and spread in the wild, with the

possibility of far-reaching consequences”. Therefore because of this, they claim that

biotechnology may in the future prove harmful through reasons like unintentional consequences

from factors like research, or intentional harm from factors like the manipulation of biology.

While on the topic of intentional harm, another reason for why biological agents may be too

detrimental for beneficial use may be because of biological terrorist incidents. Biological

terrorism or bioterrorism, as stated by author Edmond Hooker in the article “Bioterrorism

Definition and Agents Used”, is when terrorists intentionally release biological agents like

bacteria and fungi, in order to “fulfil their goal” to further their social and political aim by

making their civilian targets feel like they are not protected by the country and/or government

they are currently in. Edmond says that “many biological agents are found in nature; however,

they can be modified to be more dangerous. Some of these agents can be transmitted from person
 Gomez 5

to person, and the infection may take hours or days to become apparent”. Once symptoms

become “apparent” it may be too late to cure thus explaining their hazardous risk (Edmond).

“A Strategic Deterrent”

Some experts argue that BW agents and biological warfare itself can be used as a deterrent

because of its unpredictable outcome. Using biological weapons may sometimes have an

unpredictable outcome due to the characteristics of their implementation. Author Dr. Leonard A.

Cole reiterates this in his book review on The Problem of Biological Weapons by the author

Milton Leitenberg. In the book review, Cole writes, “Biological weapons have been used

infrequently due to difficulty in obtaining and processing the pathogens, uncertainty that they

will affect an intended target, and in some cases, moral inhibitions. For Leitenberg, the

infrequency of use arises largely from the technical challenges in producing an effective

bioweapon.” Biological weapons are used rarely because acquiring and processing the pathogens

to create the weapon is uncertain because of the immense technical difficulty when producing an

effective bioweapon. Nonetheless, it is because of this uncertainty that can make these weapons a

deterrent as fear of what the outcome will be may discourage the enemy. Therefore, with the

proper use one may be able to deter opposing powers on the battlefield. Which leads to the claim

brought up by author Susan B. Martin in the article “The Role of Biological Weapons in

International Politics: The Real Military Revolution” that biological weapons can be used as a

“strategic deterrent” on the battlefield. Martin displays the different levels of destruction between

the traditional weapon, the nuclear weapon, and the biological weapon. She states that in 1969

the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General “estimated that a single strategic bomber carrying a

one-megaton nuclear bomb could result in 90 percent deaths over an area up to 300 square

kilometers. While a single bomber carrying 10 tons of bacteriological agent [which is equivalent
 Gomez 6

to the nuclear bomb used] could result in 25 percent deaths in an area up to 100,000 square

kilometers”. Both weapons were equal in amount yet the nuclear destruction was more massive

than the biological destruction, thus suggesting that BW agents, like nuclear weapons, may play

a strategic deterrent role. Martin compares biological weaponry with nuclear weaponry in order

to illustrate an understanding of the magnitude BW agent utility has upon mass destruction thus

strengthening the argument that bioweapons can be used as a strategic deterrent.

Martin also suggests a scenario reinforced by Iran’s conduction of troop exercises where they

practice attacking United States (US) Naval ships in the Persian Gulf with chemical and

biological weapons. The scenario implies that the US could face a “Persian Gulf War, Take

Two’ scenario”, where Iraq hypothetically invades its neighbor Kuwait, causing the US to send

troops to defend Kuwait. Iraq will then launch biological weapons where the US is entering

Kuwait to bring in its troops. However, instead of being able to defend Kuwait the biological

weapon being released by Iraq will deter the US, giving Iraq access to finish invading Kuwait.

According to Martin, this use of biological weapons is not directly against the troops on the

ground, but rather at the rear of the battlefield to disrupt mobilization and support efforts, and

discourage the support of enemies in the region. This scenario is a strength because Martin is

explaining a possible way to use BW agents to scare opposing powers instead of directly

harming them. This affects the argument that bioweapons are suited for deterrence by proving

that they can be used without causing detrimental damage. This is also a weakness because

although this scenario is reinforced, that does not constitute for the fact that it is still a scenario

and that the certainty of it is questionable.

The Geneva Protocol of 1925

 Gomez 7

In addition to Martin’s claim, many argue that the treaty that banned biological warfare, i.e.

the Geneva Protocol of 1925, should be revised because it has not been revised in several years

as well as the fact that what initiated it primarily consisted of public opinion. According to the

Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, the Geneva Protocol is a treaty that

banned the use of biological warfare or the export of gases during the time of war. The utility of

this weapon was outlawed by the “general opinion of civilized mankind”. The claim that it

should be revised is supported in the article “Preventing ‘A Virological Hiroshima’: Cold War

Press Coverage of Biological Weapons Disarmament” by authors Brian Balmer, Alex Spelling

and Caitríona McLeish where they claim that although the Geneva Protocol is accurate to a

certain extent, because it has not been revised in several years it should be reconsidered. The

argument Balmer et al. make about the Geneva Protocol is accurate through the fact that

biological weaponry can be highly effective and equally dangerous which explains why they

banned it. However, this is only to a certain extent because as Balmer et al. discusses, these

weapons are “untried, untested” weapons that have the potential to be unpredictable (Balmer et

al. 86). They claim that the Geneva Protocol should be revised because although biological

agents can be very effective, they still have never been officially tested for efficacy therefore

implying why the Geneva Protocol should be revised, as it banned something it couldn’t have

understood (Balmer et al.).

Conversely, Balmer et al. argue against the Geneva Protocol by claiming that the political

attention that was given to chemical and biological warfare in the first place was due to external

pressures such as public opinion. Therefore, as Balmer et al. as well as the Bureau of

International Security and Nonproliferation state, the Geneva Protocol was established not

entirely but mainly because of “public opinion” (79). This statement strengthens Balmer et al.’s
 Gomez 8

argument because it shows a reason to why the Geneva Protocol should be taken into

reconsideration, as the public opinion may have failed to consider possible beneficial factors

from biological warfare. An explanation to why this happened might be because of the fact that

the public was not well informed of the true definition and/or capabilities of biological warfare at

the time the Geneva Protocol was implemented. According to Balmer et al. there was “extreme

secrecy surrounding [BW] research” ( 81), and because of this the only knowledge the public had

of BW was what they saw, such as bioterrorist incidents. Balmer et al. imply that this is why the

public might have put such pressure upon banning it. Miscommunication between BW

researchers and the public arose issues between keeping or banning BW, which in turn

contributed to the banning of BW; this strengthens Balmer et al.’s claim that the Geneva Protocol

should be reconsidered.

Balmer et al. also argue that biological warfare is more useful to poorer countries due to

factors such as cost efficiency, than to more “advanced countries”. He did not state specifically

how it is beneficial to poorer nations or provide any evidence that proves it directly, therefore

weakening his claim as it can be considered an assumption he made of the Geneva Protocol.

However the magazine article “WMDs: the biggest lie of all” by Dan Rosenheck claims that “the

issue is not the weapon it is inhumanity”. Rosenheck claims that “poor countries should be able

to defend their territory in the most effective, cost-efficient, and damage-minimising way.” He

claims that the problem isn’t the weapon it is how the weapon has been and is being used. The

Geneva Protocol may be taking away the only possible defense mechanism poor countries have

available because they have less access to money (Rosenheck) which is true to the extent that

poorer countries do have less access to money. Nonetheless, this statement can be considered

weak support due to the fact it is not entirely true. The claim states that BW for defense is the
 Gomez 9

most damage-minimising way yet they do not state evidence that proves this claim specifically;

therefore by lacking specific evidence or statistics, Rosenheck constructs a weak argument, as

his statements are now just claims rather than evidence. That being said, Rosenheck’s point is

valid to the extent that he is attempting to convey a side of the public opinion towards the

Geneva Protocol. For example, Rosenheck writes, “Unger, a professor of political science at

Randolph-Macon College, Virginia, [said] ‘You’d give weak states militarily a seat at the table.’

Denied that seat, they are vulnerable to attack. A developing country cannot legally make gas

weapons to deter richer aggressive neighbours, but those neighbours are allowed to build or

purchase as many conventional weapons as they can afford.” Initially, the Geneva Protocol was

pushed due to public opinion and is now being argued against due to public opinion which makes

the argument valid. What this means is that the part of the initiation of the Geneva Protocol that

involved public opinion is a result being argued with public opinion as well, which is what

Rosenheck is doing by stating this quote. Overall, the conclusions made were that BW agents

themselves are not the deterrent it is the uncertain outcome that will act as the deterrent as well

as BW should be left available for poorer countries to defend themselves when attacked. When

proving these points, the authors mentioned could use more sufficient support in order to make

their evidence ampler and fact-based. However, from a political view BW agents and BW itself

are both beneficial for international politics.

Proper Use of Biological Technology

In addition to the claim that biological warfare agents can be used for deterrence many claim

that if used properly, biological technology also has the potential to be used for beneficial

factors. Consequently, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology says that lately

through the evolution of modern biotechnology, its research has caused for the production of
 Gomez 10

new products in different areas such as in medicine, agriculture, and/or industrial biotechnology.

This claim is further supported in the article by, the Biological Weapons Conventions (BWC)

“Recent Advances in Gene Editing and Synthesis Technologies and their Implications” where

they gathered several pieces of evidence that prove this claim directly. An example they sate is

biotechnology known as CRISPR which stands for “clustered regularly interspaced short

palindromic repeats”. In order to understand the BWC’s evidence, a clear understanding of what

CRISPR is, is needed. According to the U.S National Library of Medicine CRISPR is a tool for

the editing of genes that gives scientists the ability “to change an organism’s DNA”; thus

implying that it offers for the removal and/or alteration of genetic material in different and/or

certain areas of the genome. The U.S. National Library of Medicine also stated how CRISPR

works, so it has bacteria possess pieces of DNA from a virus and use these pieces to “create

DNA segments” which are called CRISPR arrays. The arrays give the bacteria the ability to

“remember” the virus’s DNA. This way if the virus attacks again, the bacteria can produce RNA

segments from the CRISPR arrays in order to first analyze the virus and then attack it by “cutting

it apart” with an enzyme called “Cas9” (CRISPR associated protein 9). The BWC give an

example of exactly how CRISPR has proven to do this in the agricultural area. They state, that

through the use of CRISPR one can increase the ability for biological agents, like bacteria, to fix

nitrogen in crops which would reduce the negative impacts of chemical fertilizers and also

increase resistance of disease in crops and/or livestock. This is in fact effective because it proves

the argument directly, that biological agents contain beneficial factors considering this process

increases the production of food and desirable traits for the sustainable food production and

agricultural recovery (BWC) therefore a beneficial factor.

Biotechnology and Its Impact on the Medical Field

 Gomez 11

Another claim brought up is that biotechnology can benefit and improve the medical field

through the production of medical factors. Authors James B. Petro, Theodore R. Plasse, and Jack

A. McNulty, argue in their article “Biotechnology: Impact on Biological Warfare and

Biodefense” that through the engineering of traditional BW agents (biotechnology) they can

produce what are called “Advanced Biological Warfare (ABW) agents” to use for improvement

on medicine. Petro et al. claim that by engineering traditional BW agents one can produce ABW

agents in which are an inexpensive way to produce medical proteins (163). Since, this does state

how when engineered, biological agents can produce medical proteins it therefore is effective, as

it proves the argument directly that biological agents have potential for beneficial use. However,

because Petro et al. fails to state the specifics that make these “medically useful proteins”

significant, such as what they are used for and why they are needed the significance of this

beneficial factor is in question.

Production of Antibiotics

Experts argue that if used carefully and properly, biological agent engineering can contribute

to the production of antibiotics thereby benefiting the medical field. Accordingly, author T.

Lazar Mathew claims in the article “Biotechnology in Defense”, that if used “prudently”

biological agents can produce antibiotics, vaccines, etc. (393). After reading the article there was

no exact explanation to how biological weapons can produce this. In fact, T. Lazar Mathew

seems to contradict himself variously throughout the article such as when he states that “the

biggest advantage is [the] relatively high killing efficiency of most biological weapons” (396).

This statement in fact contradicts T. Lazar Mathew’s claim in the beginning of the article which

states that if used properly and carefully bioweapons “can counter such threats of biologics”

(393). This altogether deems weak support for the argument due to the confusion conveyed
 Gomez 12

between whether biological warfare counters the biological threat, or whether it contributes to

the threat. However, this issue is further elaborated in the article “Antibiotic production by

bacterial biocontrol agents” by authors Jos M. Raaijmakers, Maria Vlami and Jorge T. de Souza.

Raaijmakers et al. explain how biological agents contribute to antibiotic production which

thereby conveys a beneficial aspect of biological agent utility. Raaijmakers et al. directly states

that the antibiotic known as “zwittermycin A” is produced by biological agents, Bacillus cereus

and Bacillus thuringiensis. The point of this antibiotic is beneficial for the agricultural field

because it prevents the growth and success of microorganisms, like plant pathogenic fungi and

“in particular Phytophthora and Pythium species” (538) which as a result hurt crops and

livestock. By saying this Raaijmakers et al. strengthens their argument by showing the

mentioned biological agent’s potential for beneficial use if used carefully and properly. This

biological agent in particular is important considering Bacillus cereus is also used for biological

warfare.

With several pieces of evidence authors Raaijmakers et al. are able to reveal how these

antibiotics potentially contribute to the medical field. It is important to introduce that the

majority of the data the antibiotics produced by biological agents are obtained from “assays”

(Raaijmakers et al.) or as MedicineNet explains, analyses performed to evaluate “the biological

or pharmacological potency of a drug”. This is performed in “in vitro” (Raaijmakers et al.) which

according to MedicineNet is just that the analysis was performed “in glass, as in a test tube”.

Some of the other evidence Raaijmakers et al. state have proven to show the function of these

antibiotics in “in situ” interactions, which the Cambridge Dictionary defines “in situ” as “the

original place” or the natural interactions between antagonistic bacteria and plant pathogens.

That being said, “the first line of evidence [Raaijmakers et al. state] is the observation that
 Gomez 13

culture filtrates or purified antibiotics provided similar levels of control as achieved by the

producing wild-type strain” (539). After observing different purified antibiotics made from

biological agents they noted that these antibiotics were able to control pathogens similar to that

of the producing wild-type strain. The wild-type strain according to the Biology Online

Dictionary is “the most common form of appearance or strain that exists in the wild”. Therefore,

strengthening the argument by proving biological agent’s beneficial factors through a qualitative

observation. Overall Raaijmakers et al.’s article is stronger to the extent that they were able to

prove their claims/conclusions with sufficient evidence whereas T. Lazar Mathew had an

insufficient amount of evidence thus his claims/conclusions were weak because they were in

question of validity.

Biotechnology and Countering the Biological Threat

Part of the biological threat mainly consists of biological terrorism and many argue that

biological technology can help with the countering of this threat. The article “Advanced

Technology to Counter Biological Terrorism” by author David W. Siegrist explains a way to

counter biological terrorism using biotechnology. Siegrist explains that currently the one with the

advantage is the attacker because they have the ability to easily create a counteract agent that

neutralizes the effect of the vaccine meant to counteract the agent. For example, the issue with

anthrax and its’ vaccine; to better understand the issue, a basic knowledge of what anthrax is, is

needed. The Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research says that anthrax is “an infectious

disease caused by spores of the bacterium, Bacillus anthracis”. That being said, there is currently

an anthrax vaccine created with the intention of countering anthrax when infected by it (The

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research). Due to modern engineering, the attacker can now

easily modify anthrax so that when it infects the human it counters the anthrax vaccine currently
 Gomez 14

injected in the human, thus neutralizing the vaccine and incapacitating the human. The approach

Siegrist suggests in order to overcome this is “to develop means to combat the effects of [the]

infection, rather than a direct effect of the threat agent itself.” In the case of anthrax, it is the

“produced and discharged toxins in the agent that kill, not the pathogen itself” (Siegrist). Siegrist

says that if somehow “at some point” a vaccine or an ‘anecdote” can be produced to counter the

effect of the specific toxins, the vaccine might have a more productive effect. This strengthens

the argument to the extent that the approach Siegrist indicates does prove how biotechnology can

potentially counter the current threat therefore a beneficial factor of BW agents. However, the

solution Siegrist suggests is just an approach which discredits the argument because it is not

solving the issue rather just stating a possibility. This weakens the argument since it questions

the significance of this beneficial aspect. Nonetheless, if Siegrist’s approach becomes a reality,

biotechnology can then in fact help with the countering of the biological threat therefore

contributing to the claim that biological agents are potentially beneficial. Overall, from a

technological perspective, biological agents can be beneficial, especially when using them for

defense as well as for medical purposes.

The Possible Risk

Due to various factors, the argument is brought up that the detrimental risks and consequences

caused from using biological agents are too high to consider utilizing them for beneficial factors.

For example, one factor is the possibility to accidentally release a biological agent or agents

while researching them. The book The Increasing Threat of Biological Weapons by authors Erik

Frinking, Tim Sweijs, Paul Sinning, Eva Bontje, Christopher Frattina della Frattina, and

Mercedes Abdalla explain how “some scientists state that bioterrorist activities are not concerned

with these high-tech research developments. They [would] rather focus on low-tech activities,
 Gomez 15

which are better accessible and do not require state-of-the-art laboratories” (22). However

Frinking et al. bring up the concerning point that because of the “ease with which pathogens can

escape laboratories” this claim made by scientists is too hazardous to consider. From the year

2003 to 2009 there were 400 “mishaps” in US laboratories concerning biological agent research,

196 were accidental releases, 77 were “spills” and 46 were accidental needle sticks. Therefore,

the capability to control these accidental laboratory incidents is not guaranteed. This piece of

statistical evidence conveys how scientists do not have full control of the agent while researching

it therefore strengthening the argument by using historical and statistical evidence to prove their

detrimental consequences. This shows how they overcome the possible benefits; in this case that

would be the scientists claim to potentially research bioterrorist activities with lower technology

that does not require “state-of-the-art laboratories”.

A more specific example is stated in author Kelsey D. Atherton’s magazine article “What Are

the Real Risks of Bioweapons Research?” where she specifically discusses an incident that

occurred when the United States Department of Defense’s headquarters, also known as the

Pentagon, accidently released what is known as plague while performing research on it in the

year 2015. This issue is further described in the article "The Sverdlovsk Anthrax Outbreak of

1979" by authors Matthew Meselson, Jeanne Guillemin, Martin Hugh-Jones, Alexander

Langmuir, Ilona Popova, Alexis Shelokov and Olga Yampolskaya where they explain another

accidental outbreak of biological agent in the Soviet city of Sverdlovsk (now called

Ekaterinburg). On April 2nd, 1979, there was a bizarre release of anthrax affecting a total of 94

people, killing approximately 64 of them. According to Meselson et al., the first victim passed

four days after the outbreak and the last victim past six weeks after the outbreak. Considering not

everyone was affected all at once, rather they were affected little by little as the agent spread,
 Gomez 16

shows biological agents’ unpredictability can cause detrimental consequences. This affects the

argument that biological agent’s detrimental consequences are too hazardous to consider their

beneficial ones by conveying the agent’s power of effect. At first experts thought the deaths were

due to “intestinal anthrax” in meat, nonetheless after researching the case they found that the

outbreak was “caused by an accidental release of anthrax spores from the Soviet biological

weapons facility located in the city” (paragraph 2). This comes to show how one mistake made

while researching biological agents can cause mass destruction upon a whole city therefore

reinforcing the argument by bringing to light its detrimental outcome and how considering their

possible beneficial ones can cause fatality. After discussing the different unintentional releases of

biological agent mentioned, it is clear that biological agent’s detrimental consequences are too

high to consider using them for beneficial purposes, in the aspect of how easy it is to accidentally

release them.

Health Effects

While biological agents can be utilized for potential good, they can also be utilized for

intended harm. Many fear that widening the access of biological agents in order to use them for

benefit may encourage biological terrorist actions, which cause detrimental effects among

various factors such as human health. The article “Biological Warfare” by authors Duraipandian

Thavaselvam and Rajagopalan Vijayaraghavan, states that if biological agents are used in an

attack they can create possible health risks as well as cause a large number of deaths and/or

injuries. More specifically, the article “The history of biological warfare” by Friedrich

Frischknecht explains how in the past 100 years up to 500 million people have died due to

infectious diseases caused by biological agents. Factual evidence such as this, supplements the

argument as it unveils biological warfare agent’s detrimental consequences. This contributes

 Gomez 17

support to the argument that the agent’s detrimental risks are too high to consider them for

beneficial purposes due to the fatality caused from using them in this past century. Considering

this, the article “Emotional and Behavioral Consequences of Bioterrorism: Planning a Public

Health Response”, by authors, Bradley D Stein, Terri L Tanielian, David P Eisenman, Donna J

Keyser, M Audrey Burnam, and Harold A Pincus, further elaborate on this issue in their study on

the different effects of emotional and behavioral consequences from victims of biological

terrorist events or events similar to biological terrorism. Stein et al. explain the bombing incident

of 1987 in Northern Ireland where 26 individuals were affected with post-traumatic stress

disorder (PTSD) while 13 met the criteria for it, they claim that females were more likely to have

PTSD (421). Through events of engineering biological agents for terrorist actions, Stein et al. are

able to convey statistical evidence from a real bioterrorist like disaster that happened in 1987.

This consolidates the argument by providing sufficient background for the claim at hand in

reference to the emotional/behavioral consequences caused by biological terrorism. Nonetheless

Stein et al. does slightly weaken their argument as they presume that “females were more likely

to have PTSD” considering there is not any specific evidence that proves this directly. Therefore,

it alters the argument’s support because it is an assumption done by Stein et al. which creates

concerns about whether the detrimental consequences spoken of are worthy of consideration.

Another event where the engineering of biological agents for terrorist events caused health

effects upon people was the attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon on

September of 2001 in the United States. Stein et al. states that “one to two months after the

attacks the estimates of probable PTSD in areas close to the attack ranged from 3% for the

Washington D.C. metro area, to 11% for the New York City (NYC) metro area” (426). The

effect of the attack caused 8% to experience symptoms of PTSD and 10% reported with
 Gomez 18

symptoms of depression. These statistics from the attack on September of 2001 reveal the health

effects biological terrorism caused upon these cities. This comes to show how biological agents’

potential beneficial consequences are not high enough in comparison to the detrimental

consequences they cause shown in the mentioned bio-terrorist attacks.

Another biological terrorist attack mentioned in Stein et al.’s study is the Sarin gas attack that

occurred in Tokyo Japan’s subway on March of 1995. In this event, “more than 1,000 individuals

experienced some degree of acute or chronic gas exposure” (423); approximately 4,500

individuals who “sought medical services but could not be determined to suffer from nerve gas

exposure” were just considered “psychological casualties” (423). This event of gas exposure

conveys a bioterrorist casualty where more individuals than the last incident previously

mentioned were affected with health decrements. This thereby supplements the argument with

strong support by directly revealing how using biological warfare agents can destructively cause

health effects upon victims. Nonetheless, Stein et al. then again reduce this support due to the

fact that the percentages of health effects they compared are lower from some of the attacks they

mentioned and higher from some of the other attacks they mentioned in the study. For example,

the Terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon on September 2001, had significantly smaller

percentages of health effects than the attack of Sarin gas in Tokyo’s subway. This impacts the

argument because Stein et al. came to a conclusion that biological agents are too detrimental

while there were obvious differences in the data they observed. This creates what is called a

Texas sharpshooter fallacy considering only the similarities of the observed data were stressed,

thus causing vested interest from the authors. Nevertheless, the emotional consequences caused

by bioterrorism overall are significant and clear; however, it is weakened by mentioned fallacies.
 Gomez 19

While biological agents can be intentionally engineered for a more magnified good or bad

intention, they are also naturally airborne and can also cause detrimental consequences without

being directly engineered. These forms of biological agents are properly termed biological

aerosols or bioaerosols. An example of a bioaerosol that causes health effects is fungi. In the

article, “Indoor fungi: companions and contaminants” by authors, A. Nevalainen, M. Täubel, and

A. Hyvärinen, explains how there are various viewpoints on the discussion of fungi. The only

view where fungi are an agent “of human-exposure present in the indoor environment” is spoken

of in Nevalainen et al.’s article. Fungi are microorganisms found in various locations such as

houses, surfaces, in the air etc. Currently, according to Nevalainen et al., “little is known about

the health relevance of fungal fragments, but in a recently published study” small fungal

materials were found “more in homes of asthmatic children than on-asthmatic children” (129).

This statement implies a correlation between possible health effects and bioaerosols therefore

strengthening the argument by conveying potential detrimental consequences caused by

bioaerosols. However, this statement also implies uncertainty by saying “little is known about

the relevance” between fungi and health which calls to question the argument’s severity because

it is not conclusive that bioaerosols’ detrimental consequences are severe enough. Despite that,

the article, “Fungal allergy in asthma–state of the art and research needs” by authors, David W

Denning, Catherine Pashley, Dominik Hartl, Andrew Wardlaw, Cendrine Godet, Stefano Del

Giacco, Laurence Delhaes, and Svetlana Sergejeva further elaborate on fungi’s consequential

health risks in terms of its effect on individuals with asthma. Denning et al. discuss a study of

1,132 adults who suffer from asthma, they found that sensitization to fungi such as Alternaria or

Cladosporium herbarum are “significant risk factors for severe asthma” upon these 1,132

individuals (616). This quantitative study shows the harmful effects among those who suffer
 Gomez 20

from asthma after interacting with a bioaerosol thus supporting the argument by conveying that

there are detrimental consequences caused by biological agents even when they are not being

directly manipulated. This shows how biological agent’s detrimental consequences overcome

their potential benefits. Overall, fungi’s effects on human health were proven to the extent of the

quantitative study made, however because there isn’t a direct correlation between the bioaerosol

and asthma in reference to its effect on human health the conclusions made are in question to

speculation.

In reference to the argument that bioaerosols negatively impact human health, the article

“Bio-Aerosols in Indoor Environment: Composition, Health Effects and Analysis” by Padma

Srikanth, Suchithra Sudharsanam, and Ralf Steinberg focus on the little awareness regarding the

quality of indoor air mold contamination caused by airborne biological agents in health care

facilities of India. Srikanth et al. discuss a study conducted in a health care facility in Chennai,

India. After analyzing the study they found the gram-positive bacterium “Staphylococcus aureus

in [the] microbiology laboratory, female ward and [in the] animal house, Shigella in BWD

(biomedical waste disposal), Pseudomonas and Acinetobacter species in wards, animal house

and BWD, and Aspergillus fumigatus in [the] laboratory and [the] animal house” (306). The

study shows the significance of bioaerosol contamination in just one health care facility in India

therefore “bioaerosols may be a significant occupational safety and health concern” (306). This

study strengthens the argument by showing a clear tie between bioaerosols and its health effects

on humans. This influences the argument by conveying support towards the claim that biological

agent’s harmful consequences are more severe than their beneficial consequences. Srikanth et al.

also display another study containing of statistical evidence in which clearly show the percentage

of pollution caused by bioaerosols in health care facilities of India. In the study, the “frequency
 Gomez 21

of nosocomial infection related to air-colonisation was higher in patients of anaesthesia intensive

care unit (16.4%) than in general surgery intensive care unit (4.9%), the most frequent being

bacteremia and surgical wound infections respectively” (306). The study shows a significant risk

factor for the development of nosocomial infections in operating theatres as well as intensive

care units due to bioaerosols therefore reinforcing the argument by promoting the potential

health effects caused by these infections. Nonetheless, this piece of evidence is also a weakness

because in comparison to 100%, those statistics specifically are low; there is no evidence that

states what a high percentage of bio-aerosol pollution is. This uncertainty affects the argument

that there is an “urgent need” (Srikanth et al. 302) to be aware of bio-aerosol dispersal. Through

mentioned evidence, biological agents do not need intended manual engineering to cause

detrimental consequences: revealed through the study of India’s health care facilities. Srikanth et

al. did however exaggerate the urgency of the issue due to the missing evidence that specifies

what a high percentage of bioaerosol is, therefore questioning if it needs “urgent” consideration.

Biotechnology’s Negative Impact On Agriculture

Biological technology has harmed agriculture in terms of its effect on animals, therefore

many claim that because of this biological technology should no longer be considered for

beneficial advantages. Specifically, the claim that the engineering of animals’ DNA for human

benefits is brought up to be unethical in the article “Some Ethical Issues in Biotechnology

Involving Animals” by author David B. Morton. Morton states that the genetic manipulation or

the use of biological technology to provide, for example a supply of organs and tissues from

pigs, for those waiting for a human transplant would save lives. However, it would cause harm to

the animal. Morton is making this claim to make the point that, for human’s beneficial

advantage, humans are also harming animals. This strengthens his claim that biotechnology is
 Gomez 22

unethical to the extent that this biotechnology does harm the animal. Still, because Morton does

not display any sort of statistical or factual evidence that shows how severe this issue is it

therefore is in question to whether or not it should be considered unethical. Despite that, Morton

does display how biotechnology can be detrimental towards animals thereby contributing to the

argument that biological agents are potentially too detrimental to consider using for benefits.

Conclusion

Conclusively, the issue of whether or not BW agents are more beneficial or detrimental is a

global problem as their benefits may potentially bring worldwide solutions, while their

detrimental consequences are deadly. Contrary to what I first believed, I am now more aware of

biological warfare agents’ detrimental consequences and how they are too severe to use for

beneficial utility. The evidence for the claim that argues they have detrimental consequences is

stronger with fact-based and statistical evidence whereas the evidence that states they have

beneficial consequences consists more of weak support, such as scenarios, assumptions, and

untested approaches. For instance, when Stein et al. states that 1,000 victims experienced

acute/chronic gas exposure, and how 4,500 sought medical attention during the Sarin gas attack

in Tokyo is fact based. As well as how Srikanth et al. stated numerical data displaying bio-

aerosol pollution levels contaminating India.

Whereas in Susan B. Martin’s article where she used reinforced scenarios to prove how BW

agents are suitable for a strategic deterrence; a scenario is not fact based therefore its reliability is

less than that of the statistical evidence. This is why my perception has changed, based off of this

research the BW agent’s beneficial consequences were never actually tested for proof with

factual evidence whereas their detrimental consequences were. I do believe BW agents have the

potential to be beneficial, however are more detrimental due to the mentioned facts. That being
 Gomez 23

said, future research needs to focus on conducting more statistical studies such as those that

explain mentioned approaches with actual evidence and not hypotheticals; for instance, Siegrist’s

approach to counter anthrax. He only mentions the possible approach but does not verify that it

will work. Verifying that it will work may alter the decision on whether biological agents are

more beneficial. In addition, articles such as Stein et al.’s should consider alternative

perspectives, such as bioterrorists morals and beliefs and how their behavioral consequences may

contribute to bioterrorist actions which might explain their reasons for why they attack. This will

supplement their knowledge on both sides and possibly alter their conclusions.
 Gomez 24

Works Cited

Atherton, Kelsey D. “What Are The Real Risks of Bioweapons Research?” Cover Chem-Bio Defense

Magazine 14 September 2015, Vol. 8, No. 1, www.popsci.com/is-bioweapon-research-making-

us-safer Accessed 10 January 2019

Balan, Shalini. “Hazards of Biotechnology (Disadvantages and Negative Effects of Biotech).”

Importance of Denitrification, 16 November 2011, www.biotecharticles.com/Issues-

Article/Hazards-of-Biotechnology-Disadvantages-and-negative-effects-of-Biotech-1050.html

Accessed 20 January 2019

Balmer, Brian, Alex Spelling, and Caitríona McLeish. “Preventing ‘A Virological Hiroshima’: Cold

War Press Coverage of Biological Weapons Disarmament.” Journal of War & Culture Studies,

Vol. 9, No. 1, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17526272.2015.1101877 Accessed

09 December 2018

Bessen, Jeff, and Future of Life Institute. “Benefits & Risks of Biotechnology.” Future of Life Institute,

Jolene Creighton https://futureoflife.org/background/benefits-risks-biotechnology/ Accessed 04

January 2019

“Bioaerosols.” Bioaerosols Section 9, aerosol.ees.ufl.edu/bioaerosol/section01.html Accessed 04

December 2018

“Biological Materials Information.” Water Basis Information | Engineering 360,

https://www.globalspec.com/learnmore/specialized_industrial_products/pharmaceutical_biotech

nology/biotechnology/biological_materials Accessed 20 December 2019

Biological Weapons Convention. “Recent Advances in Gene Editing and Synthesis Technologies and

Their Implications.” Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, 31 July 2018,
 Gomez 25

www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/publications/recent-advances-in-gene-editing-and-

synthesis-technologies-and-their-implications Accessed 18 December 2018

Biology Online Dictionary. “Wild-Type.” Biology Online, 12 May 2014, https://www.biology-

online.org/dictionary/Wild_type Accessed 20 January 2019

Cambridge English Business Dictionary. “Definition of ‘in Situ.” Cambridge University Press,

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/in-situ Accessed 20 January 2019

Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “Anthrax.” U S Food and Drug Administration Home

Page, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 5 Feb. 2018,

www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ucm061751.htm Accessed 06 January 2019

Cole, Leonard A. “The Problem of Biological Weapons.” The Journal of Clinical Investigation,

American Society for Clinical Investigation, 2 May 2005, www.jci.org/articles/view/25144

Accessed 04 January 2019

Denning, David W., Catherine Pashley, Domink Hartl, Andrew Wardlaw, Cendrine Godet, Stefano Del

Giacco, Laurence Delhaes, and Svetlana Sergejeva. “Fungal Allergy in Asthma–State of the Art

and Research Needs.” Clinical and Translational Allergy, Vol. 4, No. 1,

2014.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4005466/pdf/2045-7022-4-14.pdf

Accessed 18 January 2019

Frinking, Erik, Tim Sweijs, Paul Sinning, Eva Bontje, Christopher Frattina della Frattina, and Mercedes

Abdalla. “The Increasing Threat of Biological Weapons.” The Hague Centre for Strategic

Studies, 2016 https://hcss.nl/sites/default/files/files/reports/Threat%20and%20Care%20of%20

BWdef4eversie_0.pdf Accessed 18 January 2019

 Gomez 26

Frischknecht, Friedrich. “The History of Biological Warfare.” EMBO Reports, June 2003,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326439/ Accessed 10 January 2019

Hooker, Edmond. “Bioterrorism Definition and Agents Used.” MedicineNet,

www.medicinenet.com/bioterrorism/article.htm#what_is_bioterrorism Accessed 02 December

2018

“Leonard A. Cole, Bio.” Bioterrorism and Terror Medicine Expert - Dr. Leonard Cole,

www.leonardcole.com/bio.htm Accessed 04 January 2019

Martin, Susan B. “The Role of Biological Weapons in International Politics: The Real Military

Revolution” Journal of Strategic Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2002,

https://doi.org/10.1080/714004040 Accessed 10 October 2018

MedicineNet. “Medical Definition of Assay.” MedicineNet, 27 Dec. 2018,

www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=8412 Accessed 20 January 2019

MedicineNet. “Medical Definition of In Vitro.” MedicineNet, 12 Dec. 2018,

www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4033 Accessed 20 January 2019

Meselson, Matthew, Jeanne Guillemin, Martin Hugh-Jones, Alexander Langmuir, Ilona Popova, Alexis

Shelokov and Olga Yampolskaya. "The Sverdlovsk Anthrax Outbreak of 1979." Science,

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plague/sverdlovsk/ Accessed 17 January 2019

Morton, David B. “Some Ethical Issues in Biotechnology Involving Animals.” Journal of Commercial

Biotechnology, Vol. 9, No. 2, January 2003, pp. 163–170.,

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2Fpalgrave.jcb.3040023.pdf Accessed 19 January

2019
 Gomez 27

“NCI Dictionary of Cancer Terms.” National Cancer Institute,

www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/biological-agent Accessed 03

December 2018

Netherlands Institute of Ecology. Mesocosm Experiment, 17 July 2018,

https://nioo.knaw.nl/en/employees/jos-raaijmakers Accessed 20 January 2019

Nevalainen, A., M. Täubel, and A. Hyvärinen “Indoor Fungi: Companions and Contaminants.” Indoor

Air, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2015, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25601374 Accessed 18 January 2019

Norwegian University of Science and Technology. “What Is Biotechnology? - Department of

Biotechnology and Food Science.” Go to Start Page, www.ntnu.edu/ibt/about-us/what-is-

biotechnology Accessed 04 January 2019

Petro, James B., Theodore R. Plasse, and Jack A. McNulty. “Biotechnology: Impact on Biological

Warfare and Biodefense” Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and

Science, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2003, https://doi.org/10.1089/153871303769201815 Accessed 23

September 2018

Raaijmakers Jos M., Maria Vlami and Jorge T. de Souza. “Antibiotic Production By Bacterial

Biocontrol Agents” Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, Vol. 81 No. 537, 2002,

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020501420831 Accessed 20 January 2019

Riedel, Stefan. “Biological Warfare and Bioterrorism: a Historical Review.” Baylor University Medical

Center Proceedings, Vol. 17, No. 4, October 2004,

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1200679/ Accessed 13 October 2018

 Gomez 28

Rosenheck, Dan. “WMDs: The Biggest Lie of All; Chemical and Biological Weapons Are a Red

Herring. They Are Banned Because They Provide Low-Cost Defence to Poor Nations. Cluster

Bombs Are Just as Lethal.” List of Books and Articles about Euthanasia | Online Research

Library: Questia, National Association of Social Workers, www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-

107835489/wmds-the-biggest-lie-of-all-chemical-and-biological Accessed 09 December 2018

Siegrist, David W. “Advanced Technology to Counter Biological Terrorism.” ACM SIGBIO Newsletter,

Vol. 20, No. 2, 2000, http://potomacinstitute.org/images/advtechbio.pdf Accessed 10 September

2018

Srikanth Padma, Suchithra Sudharsanam, and Ralf Steinberg. “Bio-Aerosols in Indoor Environment:

Composition, Health Effects and Analysis.” Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology, Vol. 26,

No. 4, 2008, http://www.bioline.org.br/pdf?mb08100 Accessed 02 October 2018

Stein Bradley D., Terri L. Tanielian, David P. Eisenman, Donna J. Keyser, Audrey M. Burnam, and

Harold A. Pincus. “Emotional and Behavioral Consequences of Bioterrorism: Planning a Public

Health Response” The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 82, No. 3, 2004,

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00317.x Accessed 17

September 2018

T. Lazar Mathew. “Biotechnology in Defense” Defence Science Journal, Vol. 51, No. 4, October 2001,

file:///C:/Users/library/Downloads/2253-Article%20Text-7516-1-10-20120418.pdf Accessed 19

September 2018

Thavaselvam, Duraipandian, and Rajagopalan VIjayaraghavan. “Biological Warfare Agents.” Journal of

Pharmacy BioAllied Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 3, July 2010,

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3148622/ Accessed 10 January 2019

 Gomez 29

US Legal, Inc. “Biological Warfare Law and Legal Definition.” Fraud Law and Legal Definition |

USLegal, Inc., https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/biological-warfare/ Accessed 04 January 2019

Waring, Olivia. “What Does DNA Stand For?” Metro, Metro.co.uk, 11 March 2018,

https://metro.co.uk/2018/03/11/what-does-dna-stand-for-7378535/ Accessed 19 September 2018

“What Are Genome Editing and CRISPR-Cas9? - Genetics Home Reference - NIH.” U.S. National

Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health,

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/genomicresearch/genomeediting Accessed 03 January 2019