Biological Weapons: Impact the New Technologies

In June 2018, German police arrested a Tunisian man in Cologne for trying to build a biological weapon using the deadly toxin, ricin. In October 2018, researchers flagged a US agricultural program funded by DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) as a potential mask for a bioweapons project. At the same time, Russia also claimed that the US had tested biological weapons in Georgia killing over 70 people. Further in addition to being mail bombs also carried a white powder reprising concerns of the anthrax attacks from 2001 which led to the death of 5 people.

There has been no incident of biological agents being used as a weapon of mass destruction in the recent past. Yet as the above examples show, there have been attempts to explore and create technologies that could be weaponized by both state and non-state actors. In 2016, there has been a wider recognition that the advances in technologies and improved access to science have lowered the barriers to creating designer bioweapons.

Bioweapons & its new technologies:

Gene editing using the recently discovered CRISPR/Cas’s system allows precise editing at a relatively cheaper rate without any high-cost expert training. It is important to note that before gene editing if any bioterrorist wanted to use a pathogen, he/she would have to obtain the pathogen from a restricted source. In many cases of bioweapons use, such as the one in Oregon where followers of Oslo Rajneesh, intentionally poisoned civilians using Salmonella, these pathogens are obtained from scientific laboratories which hold these microbes for research purposes. After a long decade, Biosafety standards have prevented the accidental release of these agents for malicious purposes. However, with the advances in gene editing techniques, bioterrorists could now use a relatively harmless biological agent and convert it into a more harmful agent. For instance, the currently available vaccines that protect against measles render the pathogen ineffective in causing the disease. However, the measles pathogen can be genetically edited such that it is no longer resistant to the vaccine.

While such an endeavor needs scientific expertise and infrastructure, the public revelation of the methodology and genetic sequence certainly lowers the barriers to anyone attempting to design a similar agent. Another development has been the availability of large data sets of scientific knowledge and the AI (Artificial Intelligence)-driven processing powers that can help identify combinations of genes to specifically tailor a bioweapon against a target.

There are 3 fundamental ways in which these technologies:

1. Creation of bioweapons that do not impact self-forces: This is exemplified by the vaccine-resistant measles case mentioned earlier. From this new disease it will be protected & against the welfare.
2. Creation of agricultural pests: Similar methodologies can be used to engineer bio-agents against agricultural targets, crippling the economy of the enemy nation or starving their population.
3. Creation of tailored weapons: Use this bioweapon of this variety may go unnoticed as an intentional attack and state parties may prefer such a weapon to avert large-scale conflict with an enemy state.

Policy recommends by India regarding the biological weapon:

India’s weak primary healthcare system (as stated in a report where the country ranks 145 among 195 countries in healthcare access), conducive environment and hostile relations with neighboring countries leave India vulnerable to a biological attack. Such an attack might aim at decreasing productivity in India by affecting its people or hampering agriculture or other natural resources such as water. India needs to develop a strong biodefense programmer to shield itself against any bio- attack.

      Surveillance Mechanisms: 

A primary focus must be on creating grassroot-level infrastructure and linkages to implement real-time surveillance mechanisms that can rapidly detect a biological outbreak and trigger a swift response from the appropriate authorities. This holds true for both human and agricultural attacks. Improved point-of-care diagnostics will aid in real-time surveillance. A staggered chain of protocols, including quarantine, personal protection equipment for healthcare workers, sample collection and delivery should occur in response to an infectious outbreak particularly for those cases where a disease cannot be easily identified.

Biosafety Standards, Ethics, and Penalties:

The adoption of biosafety standards in all academic and private laboratories and its enforcement through the instillation of penalties for violations will reduce accidental leakages of biological agents from authorized laboratories. The inclusion of ethics in school and college level curriculum, as well as orientation of new hires in laboratories, is essential to educate about the responsibility of the individual researcher with respect to the biological material they are using.

Leader at the Biological Weapons Convention

India needs to take a leadership position at the BWC and facilitate the inclusion of the following:

• A scientific advisory board: Unlike the Chemical Weapons Convention, the BWC does not have a scientific advisory board to advise on new trends in biotechnology and ways to counter the new age bioweapons. The formation of such a board would aid the Convention to make pragmatic decisions to prevent the proliferation of bioweapons.

• Funding issues: India could work with other countries in ensuring the BWC has enough funds to carry out its designated roles.

• An alternative to the verification mechanism: While verification is deemed a political non-starter at the BWC, India could partner with other countries for creating a more co-operative mechanism that could be used to transfer important technology for vaccine production or improved vaccine manufacture

     Public Engagement

India needs to embark on a public engagement dialogue to educate its population about the threat of infectious outbreaks and how to respond in case of any outbreak.

Conclusion:

The threat of a bioweapons attack is swiftly being recognized by countries worldwide and India also needs to step up its biodefense programmer. While new technologies may lower barriers of acquiring biological weapons, the renewed attention the topic is getting may itself be sufficient to get non-state actors interested in experimenting with such weapons. Improved access to scientific knowledge, easier control over biological material and reduced cost of creating designer pathogens could entice state and non-state actors to experiment with biological weapons. The current regulatory architecture led by the Biological Weapons Convention may be inadequate to contain this threat and needs to be revisited. India. So, India is referred as infectious outbreak country in world from the natural & intention.

~ Spondon Jyoti Dutta

Read the content and share your valuable feedback in below comment box.