Worrksheet Biological Warfare!

Which bodies currently fund research into your topic?

• As almost all countries have signed the treaty banishing BW it is hard to say which countries are funding research, but I’d reckon that a lot of them do have some secret research - maybe not even to harm someone but to prepare (and arm) themselves for possible attacks. It’s a fact that, as a part of their defense policy many governments fund research in biodefense.

Who do you think should fund research into your topic and why?

• Honestly, I don’t really know. Why would I want anyone to fund research in something that can easily kill me?

Does the science in your topic benefit everybody? If so, who does it benefit the most?

• When looking at long term effects I think that many people, if not everybody, could benefit from research that is related to BW. The problem with this question is, however, that I don’t think there is much research for BW specifically, most of the knowledge about BW comes from other fields like medical, chemical or biological research. These sciences usually aim at making our lives better/easier, so yes, people benefit. Even if e.g. new cancer treatment is too expensive for people at the beginning it will eventually be available to almost everyone. If knowledge is misused very little people would benefit, because, as I said, most knowledge is extracted from other disciplines.

If it does not benefit everybody equally, should society be paying for the research?

• Definitely. Due to the fact that most knowledge is extracted from other disciplines it would be unfair to not fund research. I would do more harm than good to stop funding research. But that is the big problem with the dual-use dilemma and I already discussed it in the other homework, here’s the link in case you want to know all of my thoughts to this topic. 

Find a TED talk in some way related to your topic. Paste the link below.

• http://blog.ted.com/2013/09/14/your-weekend-reading-in-defense-of-the-red-line-a-public-health-heroine/ [more specifically: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139913/sohail-h-hashmi-and-jon-western/a-taboo-worth-protecting?cid=rss-rss_xml-a_taboo_worth_protecting-000000] This one is about chemical weapons, I know, but chemical and biological weapons are not that different if you think about it.
• http://www.ted.com/speakers/alan_russell
• http://www.ted.com/speakers/marc_goodman

Did it teach you anything new? If so, which aspects had you not considered before?

• It definitely taught me to think twice about everything. Even if something seems to be perfectly alright and beneficial at the beginning it’s very likely that it does have a downside. Almost any invention can be misused in one or another way, so don’t just be happy about anything that seems to facilitate your life but be critical as it most likely does have a disadvantage.

Every area of research has societal factors which limit its progress. How are outside influences impacting research in the field of science you are looking at for your CAJ? Think of as many examples as you can.

• If in any way society has increased the risk for BW by pushing progress in the genetic and medical field. The fact that knowledge has become available so easily makes it prone to misuse.
• Religious fanatics might be against research because they think humans shouldn’t mess with what’s “god-given” and that we don’t have the right to modify anything.
• As most people don’t really think about the threat of BW (I didn’t either before I started my CAJ) I don’t think there are so many societal factors influencing it.

Imagine you are leading a team of researchers in your field. How would you seek to overcome these societal limitations as much as possible?

• I would try to fight against religious fanatics and teach them that progress is not diabolic. I am not against religion, but what the hell is wrong with people who say it’s god’s will that this specific person they don’t even know suffers years and years from cancer only to die miserably in the end anyway? That is just ridiculous, and if cancer research can help sick people it definitely should!

Follow this link to the list of CAJ topics.You will also need to open the list of gmail addresses. Which other topics connect, even if only in a small way, to your own topic? If you cannot say whether someone’s topic connects to yours because you do not fully understand what their topic is, then you will need to have a look at their CAJ first. Give me as many topics as you can, but at least three, which connect to your own. When you are finished, click the “share” button and invite those students below to your document (make sure the box “Notify people via e-mail” is checked so that they know you have added them).

• Follow the link.

CAJ discussion with a friend!

Last night I talked about my CAJ biological warfare with my friend Anna. I started with presenting it in basic terms, which was not hard at all, but when I had to describe some of the details I struggled a little bit. The problem was that it’s been quite a while that I wrote my last blog post so I wasn’t that up to date any more and I kind of forgot some of the details. I could have avoided that by reading through my posts before meeting up with her, but to be honest, I forgot. Anyway, this only was a little problem because our discussion did not need fine details once Anna knew about the general idea.
Throughout our discussion there was one aspect that appeared over and over again: dual-use. The biggest problem is that regardless of the good intentions of research, the findings can literally always be misused in one or another way. It is frightening what people could do if they set their mind to hurting others, and even worse how easily they could do it. What bothered us most was the fact that there is barely anything that can be done about this danger. You can’t just stop doing research, otherwise our civilization would not make progress any more and the wish to develop, to improve and to best yourself and others is a part of human nature. Also, it would not be fair to forbid research just because there is a risk of it being misused. The main focus of research is to facilitate our lives and to improve life quality for sick people or even heal them. It would be unfair to deprive humanity of the chance to help and being helped.
We discussed this problem over and over again, but the only conclusion we could come to was the following: Fear of the risk that something bad might happen should never keep anyone from anything. This applies to personal issues as well as the dual-use dilemma. There’s always a risk in almost anything and there’s nothing we can do about it. Certain risks have to be taken.

[356 words]

A little proof!

As the article I posted a few weeks ago seems to be a little unrealistic at some points - yes, I am aware of that and I realised it myself - I thought it would be useful to describe a few things that are possible today.

I recently read an article from the webpage I fucking love science that describes how scientists grew a functioning heart using stem cell and organ-on-a-chip technology.
The research was carried out to learn more about a rare and untreatable heart disease. This disease, called Barth syndrome, is caused by a single gene (TAZ) that lies on the X-chromosome and thus appears mostly in boys.
Throughout the research, scientists took skin cells of two Barth syndrome patients and converted them into stem cells that carry the mutation. The cells were tricked into joining and forming a human heart, that even contracted as a real heart would - even though less strong. When this experiment succeeded, they even were able to cure the disease.
Modelling up the disease from a single skin cell to a real heart disease is a major achievement. It helped them to understand the illness and how it affects the body.
With regard to biological warfare I can say that, once again, dual-use dilemma appears. Even though it is absolutely magnificent that scientists came closer to finding a cure to a rare heart disease, the simple fact that they were able to create said disease using a single cell is frightening.

Another very interesting article I read on I fucking love science concerns sperm created from skin cells. What was even more interesting is that I found someone already using this article for his stem cell CAJ. As this is not the first time that I found someone else blogging about a topic that is linked to mine, I thought I'd give the link in case someone is interested.
In order to find a cure to infertility in men, or at least provide other possibilities than adoption to couples that wish to have a baby but can't because of infertility, scientists generated sperm precursors from skin cells.
These cells were taken from three infertile men and two fertile men, which served as a control group. Said cells were then turned into stem cells and transplanted into the testines of mice. It was found that the cells turned into sperm precursor cells, but not into mature sperm cells. Scientists suspect that this is due to the differences between humans and mice. While the cells of the fertile men were more likely to turn into precursor stem cells, the simple fact that the cells of the infertile men converted at all is a huge achievement.
It has to be noticed, however, that the artificial cells caused cancer in the mice which means that this research carries a certain risk. Future research might be carried out on animals that are closer to humans.
This corresponds perfectly to the possibilities described in one of my earlier posts. Using this research, it might be possible to create sperm traces of a politician on clothing and thus creating "evidence" for an affair the politician actually never had.

These are only two examples of reality and how it corresponds to my CAJ. Research is a good thing, but what I personally am really afraid of is its high potential of misuse. The further research and knowledge progresses, the higher becomes the risk of it being misused.

Abstract for "When Zombies Attack!: Mathematical Modelling of an Outbreak of Zombie Infection"

The aim of this research is to provide a short mathematical analysis of an outbreak of zombie infection and some mathematical models for a possible reaction to the unlikely outbreak of said infection. While the author himself concedes that it is a fairly unrealistic model if used with zombies, these models can be used to provide useful information for real threats like BSE, swine flu or other diseases. It aims to show how mathematical models can be adjusted to numerous variations of factors that would complicate a fight against zombies. The methods used are several scenarios that demonstrate possible outcomes under the following circumstances: Basic Model, Model with Latent Infection, Model with Quarantine, Model with Treatment and Impulsive Eradiction. The author based his research on a species of zombies common in popular-culture movies, slow, stupid and cannibalistic. His scenarios either end with the eradiction of zombies or the eradiction of humankind, and as the model called Impulsive Eradiction proves to be the most efficient one (it leads to the eradiction of zombies within 10 days) the author concludes that, in order to survive a zombie outbreak, humans have to hit hard and hit often to exterminate zombies once and for all.

My own abstract to my CAJ!

The purpose of this CAJ is to provide information about biological warfare. The precise focus at the beginning was fairly general, what biological warfare is and what can it be used for. With further research it evolved and treated the following subjects: how can a biological weapon be created, dual-use of science in general and on the example of Botox. It continued with what might be possible in the future with regard to personalised biological weapons and a short analysis of a military review treating the subject of ethnic biological weapons (published in 1970 by the US government). The information collected was mainly found on the Internet. Several reports from the website of the National Center for Biotechnology Information and other sources were used. The articles were read, analysed and summarised so that the reviews would only include what was important for the topic. It was found that the threat of biological weapons is imminent and that it can hardly be avoided. Due to the fact that biological weapons are far cheaper and more efficient than any other weapon of mass destruction they will become increasingly common in the very near future. In conclusion it can be said that biological warfare is incredibly dangerous and could either destroy humanity or enslave them to people who have the one supervirus to kill us all. The focus of further research would thus lie on more specific examples of how biological agents can be (mis)used and maybe look into some conspiracy theories.

247 words 

Something to think about...

Alright guys, once again, I found something interesting.

There is a military review from 1970 by the US army that is...let's say slightly alarming. If you want to follow the link and it doesn't work try again, or go to this website and then follow the link saying "November 1970 Military Review article on Ethnic Weapons, race specific biological weapons".

I know that this post will somehow establish a few conspiracies, but it's just some things that sprang to my mind after I finished reading. I don't say that my ideas are correct or that it has to be this way, I just think that we should be careful with trusting our governments.

Before I start to explain what the review is about, I want you to remember a few things:

• this was written in 1970
• this review is based on the knowledge and technology they had back then, over 40 years ago
• the fact that there is a review on such topics makes clear that the government is interested in biological weapons and their use against ethnic groups
• one subheading says "search continues" which states clearly that the US government still had plans

The military review begins by describing how the Nazis discovered the nerve gas they used in their concentration camps and explaining how the gas actually works. It points out the medical use of similar drugs and substances and continues to say that the effect these drugs have can vary from ethnic group to ethnic group.

Scientists found out that gene mutations can cause enzyme failures to occur which can lead to early death or severe mental retardation. Some of these mutations can be overcome by a special diet (e.g. lactose intolerance), but others are much harder to treat. The issue is illustrated by the example of milk and lactose intolerance. The enzyme that helps us digest milk is fairly common in Caucasians, but seems to be almost non-existent in southeastern Asian population. Even though this is nothing all too dangerous it demonstrates the differences pretty well. 

While most of the review mostly offers explanations and descriptions of scientific findings of the time, the last paragraph "search continues" is where it becomes interesting.

It is pointed out that:

• psychochemicals could paralyse entire population centres while infrastructure and buildings would remain intact. Even though it is not explicitly said, this kind of left me with the impression that they want to use infrastructure and buildings themselves, once the resident citizens and governments are eliminated.
• the fact that only small quantities of the agent are necessary would make logistics problems almost non-existent.
• these agents can be used for covert activities as well as for purposes of mass destruction - pretty useful for a weapon, right?
• agents can be built to target all of humanity but one country/city by tolerance building. This would work the same way as vaccination: repeated exposure to the agent over a longer period of time causes resistance to its toxic effect.
• An agent can be used to eliminate enemy units when they are mingled with friendly ones if the allies are immune or simply not responding to the agent.
• a special agent can be used to lower belligerence (Kampfeslust) in enemies by slowing down their physical and mental activity, triggering disorientation and unwillingness to carry out commands. This can even go as far as taking over civilians and reeducating and using them for slaves. 

The caption to one of the pictures says "Innate differences in vulnerability to chemical agents between different populations have led to the possible development of ethnic weapons", and the review ends with the sentence "Thus, the functions of life lie bare to attack".

Even though the review doesn't give away anything as to how far these possibilities were already developed, I think it's very likely that scientists had already developed possible weapons for ethnic groups. And if not they surely were working on it. 

Considering the fact that, as I pointed out right at the beginning, this review is already over 40 years old, I think it's disturbing what they were already able to do back then, and in consequence what they might be able to do today.

Who knows when the next genocide will happen...

Abstracts Biologial Warfare!

The bioscience revolution & the biological weapons threat: levers & interventions:

In December 2008, the US Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, released a report, World At Risk. The Report points to the fact that, not only is the use of a weapon of mass destruction in a terrorist attack before the end of 2013, more likely than not, but also to the fact that terrorists are more likely to be able to obtain and use biological weapons than nuclear. This paper examines the recommendations of the report in the context of the historic and geopolitical changes, in particular globalization. The authors highlight the "dual-use" dilemma, as described in the report, as the paradoxical use of technology developed for the benefit of mankind being used for sinister purposes. The mitigation of such a threat lies in broad stakeholder involvement and cooperation, including non-state actors, governments and the bio-tech industry itself. The importance of vigilance measures within the life science community is emphasized and, the authors propose, could include a web-based didactic course in bioterrorism and weapons of mass destruction identification. The site could outline safety protocols, have detailed disaster management tutorials, and could be specifically tailored for different subsets of industry and health professionals. The paper concludes with an endorsement of a multi-pronged approach including strong international guidelines and intelligence cooperation and preparatory measures such as the wide-spread use of detection systems as well as diagnostic decision support systems for bioterrorism detection at the local level.

• I can find: Aim of research, precise focus, the methodology/theories/techniques used, the materials & subjects involved, time & location, a summary of the main results 
• Purpose, Scope, Methods and Findings/Interpretation ar included in the acstract. 
• I thus think that it is a good descriptive abstract.

Biological Warfare Agents:

The recent bioterrorist attacks using anthrax spores have emphasized the need to detect and decontaminate critical facilities in the shortest possible time. There has been a remarkable progress in the detection, protection and decontamination of biological warfare agents as many instrumentation platforms and detection methodologies are developed and commissioned. Even then the threat of biological warfare agents and their use in bioterrorist attacks still remain a leading cause of global concern. Furthermore in the past decade there have been threats due to the emerging new diseases and also the re-emergence of old diseases and development of antimicrobial resistance and spread to new geographical regions. The preparedness against these agents need complete knowledge about the disease, better research and training facilities, diagnostic facilities and improved public health system. This review on the biological warfare agents will provide information on the biological warfare agents, their mode of transmission and spread and also the detection systems available to detect them. In addition the current information on the availability of commercially available and developing technologies against biological warfare agents has also been discussed. The risk that arise due to the use of these agents in warfare or bioterrorism related scenario can be mitigated with the availability of improved detection technologies.

• There is a lot of bla bla at the beginning, like a general introduction, that is not needed. 
• The focus of the author's intention is given in the last few sentences, and a hint of the findings can be found in the last sentence. 
• I think it's a bad abstract because it just gives too little information.

Recognizing the real threat of biological terror:

Weapons of mass destruction can be used to harm and terrorize populations. Such weapons include those with chemical, nuclear or biological properties. Obviously computer viruses can add additional barriers to a quick response. The most effective, least costly and greatest threats are biologicals. Biological terror is not new, and biological weapons have been used for centuries. However, as a result of modern technology, the risks are greater now and the outcomes more terrible. Today they include live pathogens, various toxins, and theoretically "bioregulators"--biochemicals affecting cell signaling. Altered cell signaling could be used to induce apoptosis-cell death, or a heightened outpouring of cytokines mimicking overwhelming sepsis, or even an intracellular, biochemical "strike" causing cellular paralysis. Biological weaponeers now have the frightening ability to alter the genetic makeup of pathogens, rendering them resistant not only to available antibiotic therapy but also to currently effective vaccines. In dark corners of some fringe groups, bioweaponeers are searching for the capability of designing pathogens that target specific races, by virtue of discriminating ligands (1). The resulting morbidity and mortality from use of any biological weapons will be accompanied by chaos, governmental and social instability, panic, an extraordinary utilization of available resources, and an ongoing epidemic of sleepless nights (2,3). Herein I will review some of the issues and some of the currently available biological weapons. The major goal is to highlight the clinical presentations of patients with infections that could be used as biological weapons.

• Again, an awful lot of bla bla. 
• The last two sentences describe the scope in very basic terms, but all the other information is missing. 
• I think it's a bad abstract because it just doesn't give away anything.

Botulinum toxin: Bioweapon & magic drug:

Botulinum neurotoxins, causative agents of botulism in humans, are produced by Clostridium botulinum, an anaerobic spore-former Gram positive bacillus. Botulinum neurotoxin poses a major bioweapon threat because of its extreme potency and lethality; its ease of production, transport, and misuse; and the need for prolonged intensive care among affected persons. A single gram of crystalline toxin, evenly dispersed and inhaled, can kill more than one million people. The basis of the phenomenal potency of botulinum toxin is enzymatic; the toxin is a zinc proteinase that cleaves neuronal vesicle associated proteins responsible for acetylcholine release into the neuromuscular junction. As a military or terrorist weapon, botulinum toxin could be disseminated via aerosol or by contamination of water or food supplies, causing widespread casualties. A fascinating aspect of botulinum toxin research in recent years has been development of the most potent toxin into a molecule of significant therapeutic utility. It is the first biological toxin which is licensed for treatment of human diseases. In the late 1980s, Canada approved use of the toxin to treat strabismus, in 2001 in the removal of facial wrinkles and in 2002, the FDA in the United States followed suit. The present review focuses on both warfare potential and medical uses of botulinum neurotoxin.

• Once again, a long general introduction, and only the last sentence tells the focus of the review. Everything else is simply missing, so, not a good abstract.

The bioscience revolution & the biological weapons threat: levers & interventions

Go to:

Abstract

In December 2008, the US Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, released a report, World At Risk

Average Joe: "How I was blackmailed into destroying our oceans and everything within"

Dear John,

when you receive this letter I will already be dead. I am truly and deeply sorry for finally having to take that step, but maybe you will understand by the end of this letter.

You know how it was my decision to authorise the drill for oil only 150km from the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary last year. You saw my suffering, my fear, my helplessness, but you never understood why I was so terribly afraid. I knew that it was too risky to drill for oil there. Anything can happen at any time in these regions, the weather is unpredictable and so are the oil fields. These reserves are not explored enough, and we do not know how to react to the potential risks and dangers there.

Yet I approved of the drill. Me, who was the first CEO of HansonOil who ever cared about nature, cared about animals and wanted to find a middle course between men's greed for oil and conserving our ever so fragile ecosystem.

I authorised this catastrophic drill, and now everything's lost.

What made me take this decision is something so common at the moment, I should have expected it to happen to me as well. They blackmailed me. I don't know who it was, but they said that, should I not approve of the drill, they would kill me. But not the humane way with a bullet in the head or a decent amount of poison, they threatened to infect me. When I read that message I could only think of Jack Glomber. There was nothing but his picture in my head. How he suffered throughout the two years after his infection. How the doctors thought they'd cured him over and over again, yet after a week he was coughing blood again. It never ended until he jumped off that bridge. Honestly, I don't think it would ever have ended. The doctors found treatment for his symptoms but never a cure for his - yes, what was it? I only know that he took many unpopular decisions, and that his illness was not natural. His first symptom showed only two weeks after his decision to ban nuclear power plants in Australia. And you know his last words before he jumped off that bridge: "I regret nothing, it was the right decision".

I did not want to approve of this horrific drill, but fear pushed me there. And then, only two months after the drill started it happened. The worst oil spill in human history. Even worse than the one in 2020, and everyone thought that was impossible. Do you know that the oil has not even stopped to spill yet? It's been eight months now, and we were not able to find the leak. Oil still spills out of this stupid hole in the ground, all into our beautiful oceans. Almost half of the liquid surface of our planet is covered with this disgusting oil, and there's barely any life left in our oceans. Which will lead to human extinction as well. There's no way out.

In retrospect I was selfish. Overly selfish. I could have endured an infection, and if not I could have killed myself. I should never have given in to these terrorists or whoever they were! I only bought myself a few months, but now I don't want to live anymore. I just can't stand the guilt anymore. It's overwhelming.

I don't want your forgiveness, I just want you to understand why I did it - even though I hardly understand myself anymore. After all you are the only person I ever truly loved, I am so sorry that this has lead to our divorce.

Please forgive me, and never make the same mistake,
love,

Jennifer Millton

General Introduction to my CAJ Biological Warfare

Hello Everyone!

I will just give you some brief general information about my Current Affairs Journal.
I chose the topic of Biological Warfare because I think it's particularly interesting and something we all should know at least a little bit about because it's very likely to be the most used form of warfare in the near future.

So, Biological Warfare is the practice of using biological agents as a weapon. These agents can be germs, viruses, bacteria and many more. Biological Warfare is considered extremely dangerous for several reasons:

• due to the fact that knowledge about biotechnology and the needed equipment is easily available everyone who wants to could technically create an Biological Warfare agent
• biological pathogens are almost impossible to detect
• because of the rapid progress in biotechnology pathogens can be modified, and this becomes easier and cheaper all the time
• these modifications can lead to the disease breaking out in Africa even though the pathogen was released in America - which makes it almost impossible to trace back its origins, let alone its creator

All these characteristics make biological weapons pretty perfect for warfare, be it terrorists or governments who want to make use of it. In addition to this, it is very hard to defend yourself against biological weapons, because even the slightest difference in the DNA sequence of the agent can make potential medicine absolutely useless. As if this was not enough biological weapons are far cheaper than any other kind of weapon and far more efficient. 

It's very likely that Biological Warfare will soon be the only kind of warfare used.

SERIOUSLY?! WHAT THE HELL?! or: what's possible with genes and DNA...

Hej guys!

Today I found something that will blow your mind! Believe me. We're still with Biological Warfare and all, but this time I'll get a little bit more into the dark and creepy stuff that's possible - or will be in the very near future. I will tell you something about personalised bioweapons.

I apologise in advance should anything be a little unclear - I tried my very best to understand the whole article, but it was really long (9 pages in font size 9) and I was only able to sum it up in a logical way by printing it out, making notes and highlighting things. Even though it's generally not that hard to understand it's complicated by its length and the fact that the author is kind of jumping around from explanation to argument back to explanation on to scenario etc.  So, should anything remain senseless or illogical at the end, don't hesitate to ask me - unless you're willing to read the article yourself. ;)

So, where do I begin? Right, maybe with a little background information - once again. As we all know technology is gradually becoming more and more sophisticated and cheaper. This phenomenon, originating from information technology, is called "Moore's Law" and can be applied to numerous industries and technologies. The basic idea was that the transistors on an integrated circuit will double in 24 months thanks to the exponential growth rate at which technology is advancing.
For us, with regard to BW, this means that, even though many of the things I will mention below are still coulds and woulds today, they will soon be reality.

What makes specialists (and me, after reading this article) so sure about this? For one thing the fact that most of the technologies needed are already available and being used by numerous organisations, and they become cheaper and more powerful every day. In the field of cancer treatment scientists work with DNA manipulation. Because of genetics we know that each cancer is unique and thus needs personalised treatment - which paves the way for personalised medicine. Chemotherapy might no longer be necessary in the future when medicine has advanced enough to design individual treatment for specific cancer cells in a specific person. While todays chemotherapy always evokes collateral damage this targeted treatment would only focus on hazardous cells and would not attack the surrounding ones. In Finland, already 300 patients received personalised medicine similar to this one.

This is where dual-use enters the game. This new technology paves the way for better treatment and new cures, but it also paves the way for personalised bioweapons. From what I've learned so far I think I can say that, as a general rule, if something has a good use it can also be abused for malevolent intents. As it is possible to aim medicine to special cells or DNA, why should it not be possible to aim viruses at one specific person? They can already target a certain ethnic group (I will go into detail with this in my next post), so I don't think that the step to targeting a single person is too big.

Now that it's possible to decode DNA and genes the new goal is to find a way to write DNA. Scientists can easily decode the human genome that consists of the considerable amount of 3 billion base pairs today, and what used to cost them up to $300 million is now less than $1,000. In addition, they have managed to transform the four bases (Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, Thymine) that make up our DNA sequences into binary code, so computers can help. Biology has become an information-based science, bioscience, and synthetic biology moved from the molecular to the digital. With the press of a button scientists can now manipulate genetic information, cut and paste chunks of it and once they are happy with their new DNA a DNA print shop turns their idea into biology. The required knowledge is easily available too, for example via online courses or how-to videos on the Internet.

In 2010 the first digital blueprint was inserted into a host bacterial cell (emptied of its own DNA). The attempt to create a living cell from scratch actually worked, the cell started to metabolise, grow and divide - only using the inserted DNA. This can be highly usable in medicine, as this technique can be used to generate all kinds of other cell types the body might need to recover from a severe illness. These procedures can, however, be applied to many more fields.  By stitching together different genes scientists created a special form of yeast that manufactures a rare ingredient of an anti-malaria drug. They also work on a special form of algae that will turn carbon dioxide into biofuel and flu vaccinations that can be produced in a few hours instead of six months.
It could be possible, in the future, to create new organisms and species unknown yet. As they do not develop naturally they can be designed to be very robust and maybe we could even generate life forms that can live in outer space.

From all these maybe infinite possibilities emerge, once again, numerous problems and questions. How shall this be controlled? How can it be misused? What about ethics?
In 2011 US Secretary Clinton said that, "unfortunately the ability of terrorists and other non-state actors to develop and use these weapons is growing".
The simple fact that all this is now feasible implies risks over risks. What if an accidents happens? What if two normally harmless life forms cross with each other and become a real threat? What if terrorists use this new knowledge to create dangerous pathogens? Especially viruses are rather easy to engineer. Different states and terrorist groups have for a long time now dedicated money, time and effort to biological research of whatever kind.

To generate a personalised bioweapon the creator needs:

• Live cells from the target: they need to be collected and grown - easily feasibly with our technology. 
• When there are enough cells a detailed molecular profile (blueprint) needs to be generated - yep, possible. 
• Once this is done the creator can start to design, build and test a pathogen that targets the desired cells - more complicated, but still possible.

Neither is this easy, nor is the required equipment cheap or available in the shop next door. Still, if you buy the gadgets on eBay you can have them for $10,000 - and you can still outsource step one and two if you can't do it yourself. Step three could be a little difficult to outsource as people might ask questions.

You may think that even getting the DNA is rather hard, but honestly, it is not. A genetic blueprint can be generated from the information of one single cell - and we all spread millions of our dead cells literally everywhere on a daily basis. Whenever we touch something we give away a few cells in which the DNA is intact. As we learned above, this DNA can be implemented into a host cell and then be used for the creation of a personalised bioweapon. However, it's not only the DNA we loose daily that can be dangerous. DNA can survive millennia without being damaged at all, so every paper you touched in school e.g. still contains some of your cells.

So, now you'd might ask "Okay, it's possible, but what would I need this for?"

First of all, criminals are more likely to aim for a personal targeted weapon than a weapon of mass destruction - after all one murder puts less pressure on your conscience than mass slaughter and it's less likely to be caught if the attack appears a normal disease. 

Secondly, bioweapons are usually tasteless, odourless, easily aerolized and thus almost impossible to detect. Literally anybody can be attacked and it's very likeable that the attack goes unrecognised because it might be taken as a natural disease or death. These new possibilities are not only interesting for terrorists or criminals. Big companies, CEOs, corrupt politicians - they all could use them for attaining their own aims.

Just imagine a few scenarios:

• It's easy to gain business advantage by inducing extreme paranoia in the CEO of any big company.
• The brain could be attacked in a way that's causing for example schizophrenia, paranoia, bipolar disorders or Alzheimer.
• Evidence for an affair a politician actually never had can be fabricated using his DNA.
• Evidence for an illness a person does not have can question his ability to lead a country or a company.
• In the future DNA could even be generated to sperm and then be used to fertilize eggs - which could be dangerous for politicians as people could question their integrity if there suddenly was an illegitimate child.
• Viruses could be generated to target for example retina cells and cause blindness, certain brain cells and cause loss of memory, or even worse, if they targeted cells of vital organs the attack would result in death.

Instead of targeting your virus only on cancer cells you could target it on all kinds of cells and induce all kinds of diseases. All these possibilities create a certain fear. Due to the fact that it's hardly possible to NOT spread our DNA, it is hardly possible to prevent these potential threats. In the future terrorists (or even governments) might hold DNA hostage and blackmail leaders and politicians into being puppets. 

Now the big question is how to defend against something that does not yet exist? This problem is aggravated by the rather new idea of crowdsourcing. In case you don't know what that means, it's a practice of, when you're facing a problem and don't know how to solve it, publishing your problem and let other people (or groups) solve it. After all, 100 people know more than 10. This can (or could in the future) happen on the Internet, but there are already similar forms of crowdsourcing happening today - not with the the aim to solve a specific problem, but to support creativity and interest in science. The MIT, for instance, annually launches the iGEM (International Genetically Engineered Machine competition) in which teams of high school students can build simple biological system from standardized, interchangeable chunks. What started as a nice challenge now pushes technical as well as creative barriers and many of the produced organisms have real-world applications.
Crowdsourcing embodies many advantages and helps to make progress in science even more rapid, but it also complicates the task of defending against these new - possibly dangerous - inventions.

There is no international organisation in charge yet. As everything is so new and unknown no one knows how to deal with the possible threats. Even though there is now, at least in the US, an organisation that evaluates research for its potential of dual-use. Personally, I think that almost every research can be misused in one or another way, therefore restricting all research with such potential does not seem the right way of surveillance.

As you can see, MUCH is feasible already today. Considering the rapid progress it's only a question of time until BW becomes more sophisticated, easier attainable, far cheaper and thus far more dangerous. The future of warfare is very likely to lie solely in Biological Warfare.

Tp illustrate the potential threat a possible scenario the author of this article describes proceeds as follows:
Companies see the potential of crowdsourcing and let the public design T-shirts, write encyclopedias (Wikipedia), then also develop self-driving cars and in the end even design biological agents. People could upload information about their particular disease and virologists (those dealing with viruses and diseases) design personalised cure for them. What started off with only cancer research went on to vaccination and all other kinds of medicine. Yet there was no international body to watch what was going on. One person then posts a challenge on a viral-design site, and nobody notices anything special. People got to work and within 12 hours one young man submitted the perfect solution. His design was passed on and turned into actual genetic material. Only three days later a young girl at a university receives a package with some party drug she ordered online - only that the package didn't contain her drug but viral pills. She used it and got a cold, but nothing seemed abnormal and the flu spreads over the campus. A few days later the president of the US holds a speech at this very university - and of course catches the flu as well. Only that it wasn't just normal flu. It was a highly developed virus that - when meeting the right DNA sequence triggers a dangerous and fast-acting neuro-destructive disease that results in memory loss and eventually death. Unfortunately the president of the US was the only person in the world with this particular DNA sequence.

Scenarios like this might be reality soon, and even if someone would realize that this was no normal death but an attack the culprit may never be taken because it's easy to stay anonymous on the Internet.

Just the thought that our future might look like this really frightens me. I'm coming to think that not all progress is a blessing because it's the very nature of humans to abuse it. In a few years a person who holds the DNA of the world leaders would rule the world. He could blackmail them into doing literally everything he wants. People will no longer be free in their decisions. I am very sure that this knowledge would not only be used by people aiming for much power but also on a much smaller scale so that in the end it's not only the "important" people who will be bullied but everyone else as well.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/hacking-the-presidents-dna/309147/?single_page=true

Dual-use dilemma at the example of *drumroll* BOTOX!

Hej there!

As I mentioned in my posts before, almost all science has potential for dual-use. This leads to dilemmas and heated discussions and restrictions and surveillance of scientists and their research. I will explain this dual-use problem on the example of botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs) or Botox, as most people know it.

I think all of you know about Botox and how it is used to help ageing people to correspond to our weird beauty ideal. Another, more clinical use for Botox is the treatment of several neurological disorders like muscle spasm or a lack of muscle control. In this case a small amount of Botox is injected into a muscle to relax it and thus reduces the symptoms of the disorder. The treatment has to be repeated about three or four times a year, can be applied to children as well as adults and has very few side effects.

Botox is, however, also a very effective toxin leading to a potentially fatal illness called Botulism. When infected, the patient experiences acute weakness of muscles, difficulty in speaking and swallowing and a blurred vision. These symptoms aggravate leading to respiratory muscle paralysis that can cause death if the patient does not receive treatment. As Botulism does not affect the mental functions of the patient he stays conscious throughout the entire course of the disease.

There are four forms of Botulism, namely food borne, infant, wound and animal. The only difference between the forms are the way of infection, but if you want to know the exact differences you can read through them here or here.

So, besides the fact that Botulism does not seem to be a very pleasant disease, why again are BoNTs so extremely dangerous and have a high potential to be abused as a biological weapon?

BoNTs high potential for a abuse is due to fact that only 39.2 g of its pure form would be enough to eradicate mankind. Should BoNTs ever be used as a biological weapon it is most likely to be either by contamination of food or as an aerosol attack. Additionally, the spores can survive very long periods of time because they are highly resistant to heat, desiccation (Austrocknung), chemicals, radiation and oxygen. Furthermore, BoNTs are rather easy to generate. The first outbreaks of Botulism were caused by food preservation. Under the right conditions BoNTs arise for instance in canned or jarred food, carrot juice or garlic in oil. Over 90% of the first registered cases of Botulism were caused by home preserved food, which is also why food production is under such strict regulations today.
But just imagine some terrorist would have access to the production facilities of a company that produces canned food. By altering production just a tiny little bit he could easily contaminate huge amounts of food without anybody noticing.

Even though there is a possible vaccination against Botulism it is not applied to the population due to the facts that it is a. too expensive b. would restrict the use of Botox for beauty or clinical purposes and c. that there are still several shortcomings with the currently available form of the vaccination.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3028942/
http://wuphysicians.wustl.edu/dept.aspx?pageID=17&ID=4

Dual-use of Science!

I decided to go on working on my CAJ today, and to be honest, I was quite overwhelmed. Now that I have already talked about the most general things that are to say about Biological Warfare, it was pretty hard to find something that goes more into depth. Most articles I found online were general introductions, but I found barely anything I could use for this blog post.
But now, finally, I think I found something. The thing is that in order to understand BW you have to know a little bit about genetics and biotechnology. The entire concept of sophisticated BW only exists because of the progress men made in genetic engineering. Only because of the fact that we are able to decode genes and manipulate them (at least up to a certain point) is it possible to create efficient biological weapons. Without the help of highly developed lab equipment and a considerable amount of knowledge about genetics BW would not be possible.

The problem with this, however, is about the ethics. Our knowledge of genetics and biotechnology did not come from belligerence (Kampfeslust) and the urge to hurt others, but from the desire to understand even the smallest parts of our universe and from the wish to cure illnesses and facilitate our lives by making for example food production more efficient.  Scientists did not conduct research with the aim to fight people but with the noble intention of making our lives better. This virtuous cause, however, was not able to protect improvement and progress from dual-use.
Dual-use describes the phenomenon that something can be used for two different purposes, e.g. military and civilian. Common examples for dual-use are for example GPS that used to be only for military service and is today used for navigation. In our case, dual-use means that an invention or result of research can be used for helping people as well as - in the worst case - killing them.

Dual-use can occur in almost every academic discipline. In atomic physics, soon after the nuclear chain reaction was discovered, scientists realized its potential for mass destruction and discussed whether to keep their findings secret to prevent them from being weaponized or publish them. While they were kept secret at first, other scientists finally published the findings which eventually lead to the atomic bomb.
Another very contentious paper is a study published in 2005 that showed how 400,000 people  could be killed by no more than 4g of a toxin dispersed at one dairy plant. While the author only intended to show a way of protection of the U.S. milk supply he was lashed violently from the government because the information could easily be misused. The study was published nevertheless because the journal wanted to raise awareness of the danger.

Another famous example for the controversy of research that can be dual-used is a debate about the alteration of the H5N1virus. Two studies managed to make this lethal virus easier transmissible between mammals, and thus more efficient as a biological weapon. The wish of the performing scientists to publish their findings was followed by a heated discussion. Publishing opponents argued that the studies give exact instructions on how to make the already lethal virus even more fatal while supporters wanted it to be published in order to facilitate future research on H5N1. It was considered to publish the studies but leave out the keypoints necessary to really create this modified version of the virus, but after numerous scientists requested it to be published completely finally one of the two studies was published in Nature. It was pointed out that after all the information was not as dangerous and sensitive as first assumed.

Clearly, many scientific papers can be misused, even if the author had no such intentions. This happened to Arthur Galston, a botany student who published a thesis on chemicals that hasten the development of flowering plants. Military researches read the thesis and used his finding to develop the Agent Orange. This chemical was used in the Vietnam War and has caused severe human health problems.
Because of cases like this some scientific journals have now started to evaluate the papers they intend to publish on their dual-use potential in order to prevent such controversies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3385452/#r11

Comment on rhetoric of: "YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME. HA HA HA!!"

I found a pretty amusing blogpost treating the topic of biological warfare. It is called "YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME. HA HA HA!!" - as soon as I read this title I knew it was gonna be a good one to comment on its rhetoric. So, here we go.

The rhetoric of this article was not convincing at all. The author wants to establish a certain connection to the reader by addressing him directly and by including himself in the audience. For me this does not really work, simply because of the way he is talking about his conspiracy theories. He does not support his poorly developed arguments with facts but with strange conspiracies. In addition to this, he himself says that he is no physician, government official or health official (even though not in this blogpost but in the About-section of his blog), which evokes the feeling that he has no clue about the topic. The author relies on a strong emotional appeal related to his credibility. He talks about numerous conspiracies, saying that should smallpox ever again occur in the U.S. it has to be a Russian attack. He also claims that certain varieties of flus were attacks as well, simply because of their similarity to other, already extinct, seasonal flus. Knowing that each seasonal flu subtype is different to the one that occurred in the year before I wonder why it should not be possible that one subtype resembles another one and how this could possibly work as an argument for the flu being a biological attack from whatever country. By using such poor arguments the author lost all his credibility immediately and I don't believe anything he says. 

Creation of a biological weapon!

As I already mentioned in my first CAJ-post, Biological Warfare (BW) is the practice of infecting people with an infectious disease caused by microorganisms such as viruses or bacteria. It can, however, also be used to harm crops or animals and thus have an effect on people. BW is, due to the progress in biotechnology, highly effective and can be adjusted to almost every need.

In order to create a biological weapon several steps have to be taken. First of all, a suitable biological agent has to be chosen, acquired and cultivated until there are sufficient quantities of the pathogen (Krankheitserreger). The choice of an agent already requires detailed knowledge as numerous characteristics have to be taken into account. Some of these would be the agent's :

• pathogenicity -> how much of the agent is needed to cause the disease
• incubation period -> how much time passes between infection and outbreak of the disease
• virulence -> how debilitating (schwächend) the disease is
• transmissibility -> how easily the disease spreads

Nowadays the chosen pathogen can either be harvested from its natural environment or bought from a microbiology laboratory or a bank. Toxins, however, can also be created with the help of its DNA and bacteria. While the harvest usually leads to much work such as purification and tests on its exact characteristics, buying them usually requires certain security measures.
When the agent is in available, it can be modified and altered until it targets exactly what or who its creator wishes to attack. It can be modified to have a shorter incubation period, to be more aggressive when broken out, to spread more easily or to be more resistant to possible treatments.
When everything is the way the creator wants it, the agent is ready for its release. This is again a little difficult because the microorganism leaves the perfect artificial environment that was created to grow it and is now exposed to stresses like temperature, ultraviolet radiation and many more. The agents are often frozen, freeze-dried, converted into a stable solid, liquid or gaseous solution or powdered to ensure their effectiveness and then dispersed in whatever state they are.

Some of the main differences between BW and other means of mass destruction such as nuclear and chemical weapons are the following:

• the release of an agent is barely ever detectable
• the first sign for the use of biological weapons is usually someone showing symptoms, getting sick or dying
• these diseases often spread without someone realizing because it's possible that someone is infected but shows no symptoms yet due to a long incubation period 
• while the release of the agent might be in Asia the outbreak of the disease can be (e.g.) in Africa because of the incubation period and the differences in susceptibility (Anfälligkeit) of the individuals exposed to the agent

Because of the fact that pathogens are not that difficult to get, that the equipment required is easily available and also that many of the procedures needed are described in published scientific literature, it has become fairly easy to create a biological weapon. Of course, it is still related to much difficulty, but with a sufficient amount of time, money and knowledge it can be achieved. This is actually rather scary, because all of these three requirements can be obtained if you're only determined enough the create a biological weapon.

http://www.fas.org/programs/bio/bwintro.html

Biological Warfare

Hi Hello!

Well, I chose Biological Warfare for my CAJ. So, what am I supposed to make out of it? I have no idea.
I basically chose it because I think it's an interesting topic...how people use science and inventions to actually just hurt others or destroy them in whatever way.

One of my favourite series, Perception, treated this subject once:
The story was about a farmer who lost everything because, and that's where it gets complicated - but I'll do my very best to explain it - the grain he harvested and sold was of a new genus that a huge company invented and patented. He, however sold it without permission and said that it was another genus, and when the company found out that it actually was their new genus they sued him so that he lost everything. After some further investigation, the FBI agents who were working on this case find out that it actually never was the farmers fault because the grain this company invented was spreading over the surrounding area all by itself and growing rampant like some super effective weed. The company knew about it and used this characteristic for suing and destroying the business of all the small farmers that might present a potential threat for their predominance in the grain market.

That was one point when I thought that this might be an interesting topic for my CAJ, so here I am.
As this basically is the only thing I know about Biological Warfare so far I will start at the very beginning and then hopefully find somewhere to go into depth about this topic so that I will achieve the task we are given.

So, what is the actual definition of the term Biological Warfare?
According to merriam webster it is "the use of harmful living things (such as germs that cause disease) as weapons in a war", according to Oxford Dictionaries it is "The use of toxins of biological origin or microorganisms as weapons of war". 

Well, Biological Warfare already started in the early years of men and of course was used mainly in wars. Some techniques of the past were poisoning wells with decomposing bodies or dipping weapons in decomposing bodies in order to infect the wounds they were causing. Another example is that colonialists gave smallpox-infected blankets to the natives in order to decimate their numbers.
Since these simple yet rather effective methods we've developed rapidly and the methods used nowadays are far more efficient and malicious.
The Geneve Protocol, signed by 108 nations already in 1925, prohibits chemical agents (as the germs and viruses used in Biological Warfare are called). However, there is no way the compliance with this multilateral law is guaranteed.

So, in my next blog post I will hopefully already have managed to actually inform myself a little more and have a better overview over my whole topic.


http://www.emedicinehealth.com/biological_warfare/article_em.htm

Revisison of my Eurozone Crisis summary!

Original Version:

Europe already has one foot in “Japanese” deflation grave:

This article, published in The Telegraph by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, is about the European debt crisis. He presents its risks, the policy errors made by all governments and explains how close Europe already is to the dangerous deflation trap.

The author emphasises that Europe is on the edge of deflation. Most countries experience debt rise which will finally lead to deflation. Once a country, or in our case the Eurozone countries, reaches deflation it is incredibly hard for them to escape from it. This is proven by the example of Japan, a country struggling for years to reach and maintain a healthy inflation rate. In order to prevent deflation, however, the European governments would need to take on even more unpopular policies and therefore they prefer doing nothing. According to the author they will wait until the Eurozone crisis even hits the wealthier countries very hard instead of dealing with it now.

Evans-Pritchard then suggests possible solutions, admits, however, that it is not likely that they will be applied, as this would require a considerable amount of effort and courage from the governments. He concludes that Europe will eventually slither into deflation and will have a hard time escaping it again.

[200 words]

Revised Version:

Europe already has one foot in “Japanese” deflation grave:

This article, published in The Telegraph of October 23, 2013 by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, treats the problem of the European debt crisis. He presents its risks, the government policy errors and explains how close Europe is to the deflation trap.

The author emphasises that Europe is on the edge of deflation. Most countries experience a debt rise which will finally lead to deflation. Once a country, or in our case the Eurozone countries, reaches deflation it is incredibly hard for them to escape. This is proven by the example of Japan, a country struggling for years to reach and maintain a healthy inflation rate. In order to prevent deflation, however, the European governments would need to take on even more unpopular policies and therefore they prefer to remain idle. According to the author they will wait until the Eurozone crisis even hits the wealthier countries very hard instead of approaching the problem now.

Evans-Pritchard then suggests possible solutions, admits, however, that it is not likely that they will be applied, as this would require a considerable amount of effort and courage from the governments. He concludes that Europe will eventually slither into deflation and will have major difficulties escaping it again.

[200 words]

Comment on Summary 28041994

Alright, I chose the Summary 28041994 and here is what I think about it:

SUMMARY OF EUROPE ALREADY HAS ONE FOOT IN “JAPANESE“DEFLATION GRAVE

According to the author;  the current economy faces the same problem as decades ago (1). Debts keep rising and no government knows how to prevent financial crisis (2). The situation will become more lethal for all EU- members since the Inflation-rate (3) keeps falling which makes it more possible for Europe to fall into debt (4). Over the past months examples, such as Italy, Spain and Greece, give an impression about what will happen to other countries if deflation starts (5).

The authorities can look back on similar cases that happened in the past. The Japan syndrome which occurred in 2002 is a reminder of how dangerous this scenario can become. Currently, it seems that there is no opportunity for the indebted states to flee from their debts (6). As a result many countries cut spending first, to prevent their debts from rising (7). This leads to reciprocal accusations because the governments do not know how to improve their financial situations (8). Italy, Spain and Greece would benefit from inflation; however, Germany is against it at the moment.

As a solution Club Med allies should gang up to receive what they need. Most countries are still hoping for the best case scenario, but the chances are near zero (9).

200 WORDS, NOT INCLUDING TITLE

My comments:

1. I don't think you need the semicolon after the author; also I would rather say the current European economy because the article basically is about Europe, and not the whole world.
2. I'd rather say how to combat the crisis as the crisis is happening right now.
3. As far as I know you don't need these two hyphens.
4. It is more likely, not more possible; also, Europe already is in high debt, I'd rather say fall into deflation, because isn't that what the author is saying all the time?
5. Examples, such as -> no need for the comma after examples; If I understood the author correctly those countries are not yet in deflation (only in high debt), they simply have too little inflation.
6. Aren't they supposed to pay them back instead of fleeing from them?
7. I would leave out the first, 
8. I don't think you say situations, singular is fine.
9. I would put in something like the author says that because without this it sounds like it is your opinion. Also, these last two sentences seem really vague in comparison to the rest of your summary.

All in all I have to say that I don't really think it is a good summary. You forgot to mention the authors name in the beginning and somehow your summary is lacking a proper introduction sentence. Also, the conclusion is somehow really short and abrupt, maybe you should have left out something above (like naming the states, in my opinion that is not really necessary) and instead write a more developed conclusion. This is just my personal opinion, but I got the feeling that you did not really get the text - which I can fully understand, it was horrible! I hope you are not too discouraged by my feedback, it really is just my opinion, and maybe you can even understand some of my remarks and they help you with your next summary.