Daydreams and Nightmares in Biological Weapon Control

Today, interest in the development of biological weapons is the mark of a desperate pariah state or terrorist group. International efforts have led to the de-legitimation of these weapons, improvements in defences, as well as improved processes of detection, attribution, and prosecution. Such efforts have also fostered the emergence of domestic legal frameworks worldwide. The centrepiece of this control regime is the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) which is over 40 years old. However, while this system stands as a testament to diplomacy and humanitarianism, it is worth remembering that the emergence of this regime and the norm it embodies was never guaranteed, and nor is its survival.

In particular, developments in science and technology, as well as changes in the character of conflict could undermine existing global prohibition systems. These two types of development make it very hard to predict if, how, and why biological weapons will be developed in the future; yet these very same changes appear to create problems that go far beyond the capacities of our existing disarmament and counter-terrorism approaches. These developments may open up new niches for biological weapon use for states as well as terrorists groups, and are already associated with calls for new ways in thinking about how to maintain the prohibition against biological weapons.

How then, in the context of such uncertainty, should biological issues be addressed in the long term? One set of concerns is focused on incremental developments in science and technology. A key task is distinguishing ‘fear of the new’ from new concerns that genuinely merit further attention. Do new discoveries related to DNA synthesis and manipulation really make the use of biological weapons by states or terrorists more likely or impactful? Or does the novelty of cutting-edge developments lead us over-estimate the likeliness and consequences of misuse? If we understand concerns in this way, then a key challenge is distinguishing between those issues which merit further discussion, and those which require debunking.

There is a second, more ubiquitous type of concern however, which may call for a different response. In this case, specific advances become symbolic of much broader trends that threaten to irreversibly damage existing systems of control and oversight. How seriously, for example, should we take concerns about military interest in biotechnology, in the absence of global and transparent compliance verification systems? Should the international community pay greater attention to the potential impact of military research into biologically synthesised explosivescyborg insects or neuroscience as a threat to the coherence and sanctity of the general prohibition of biological weapons? Should we be worried about biodefensive research that develops techniques to produce ever more deadly pathogens?  Does faith in existing laboratory safety, material controls and public health give us a false sense of security in a dynamic technological and security environment?

A good first step to address both types of concern would be the development of a convincing review process in the context of the BWC. We currently have a system, which is the product of the last review conference. However, the purpose of this process, as well as the criteria by which we should judge its effectiveness, are at best described as ambiguous. It is unclear for example, how well this process even helps states distinguish between the two broad categories of concern above, let alone decide upon points of action. It is with this in mind that we must reflect on what can, and what cannot be achieved in the context of the forthcoming review conference at the end of this year. Many of the key experts and capacities, which currently sit outside of the formal review process, are already there – dispersed as they are within government departments, scientific organisations and industry. In addition to this, much of the conceptual groundwork has already been laid by the Swiss delegation. However, it is yet to be seen whether states will manage to make meaningful progress on this issue this time round.


Brett Edwards


This piece originally appeared on the website The Cipher Brief , under the title ‘The Threat from Biological Weapons’ as part of a series of articles entitled  Biotechnology’s Dark Side January 17th 2016.


Chemical Control Regulation of Incapacitating Chemical Agent Weapons, Riot Control Agents and their Means of Delivery Michael Crowley

crowley chemical control

About the book

Incorporating a wealth of new information from around the world, this study concerns contemporary research, development, promotion and deployment of weapons employing two distinct types of toxic chemicals: riot control agents and incapacitating chemical agents. Dr Crowley highlights the international community’s failure to effectively regulate these weapons, and the consequences for human rights and human security. Employing an innovative ‘holistic arms control’ methodology, the author analyses regulatory systems and the international law potentially applicable to such weapons in order to develop effective routes to combat their misuse. In addition to State-centric mechanisms, the increasingly important roles of the scientific and medical communities, and informed activist civil society, are explored.

Here is a beautiful and meticulously researched text that needs to be read by everyone working for a world finally free of chemical weapons. It is constructed as a case study in ‘holistic’ arms control, which is a novel and rich approach that calls for a still wider readership.
– Professor Julian Perry Robinson, Harvard Sussex Program on Chemical and Biological Weapons, UK

Michael Crowley’s book is an important contribution to the debate about whether law enforcement use of riot control and incapacitating agents would undermine the prohibition of poison weapons. He places a complicated arms control issue into a broader legal and institutional context, and discusses strategies for dealing with these evolving technologies. A much needed book.’
– Dr Ralf Trapp, International Disarmament Consultant and former senior official at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), The Netherlands

The development of incapacitating chemical agent based weapons presents a serious threat to the Chemical Weapons Convention. This book explains the importance of transparency on these chemicals, as well as on riot control agents and their means of delivery, and suggests how both types of weapon could be brought under effective international control. This is a pressing task for the OPCW especially in light of recent and repeated use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict.’
– Stefan Mogl, Head of Chemistry Division, Spiez Laboratory, Switzerland, and former Chair, OPCW Scientific Advisory Board

21st-century science and security

Governments’ weakening control over innovation calls for updated methods of arms control and oversight. Universities must play their part in forming security policy and enforcing good practice, argue Brett Edwards and David Galbreath.

David Galbreath and Brett Edwards presenting at the meeting 'Biological and Chemical Security in an Age of Responsible Innovation' Held at the Royal Society, London and hosted by the Biochemical Security 2030 Project. Image: R.guthrie.

David Galbreath and Brett Edwards presenting at the meeting ‘Biological and Chemical Security in an Age of Responsible Innovation’ Held at the Royal Society, London and hosted by the Biochemical Security 2030 Project. Image: R.guthrie.

In October, the United States government announced a “funding pause”—since partially lifted—on gain-of-function research into three viruses, including influenza. These studies attempt to make a pathogen more deadly or infectious in order to improve understanding of how to treat and vaccinate against the disease. The safety and security implications of such work are obvious, and this latest policy development followed a number of emergency meetings at national and international level and a voluntary moratorium among scientists.

But governments cannot, as they once might have done, hope to exercise absolute control over who does what to pathogens. Developments in biotechnology point to a future in which techniques seen as cutting-edge today are increasingly accessible and widespread. Technological changes in areas such as gene sequencing, synthesis and editing promise to speed up laboratory procedures that for now are time-consuming and arduous. And economic and scientific globalisation continue to make technologies more accessible worldwide.

This will influence not only where innovation happens but also who is involved. The emergence of amateur biologist groups, sometimes called biohackers, who operate outside traditional research environments, has already become a symbolic focal point in this regard. Their capacity may be limited for now, but some claim that their emergence foreshadows an increasingly nimble and decentralised model of biotechnology innovation.

The histories of the modern state, technological progress and security are tightly interwoven. But biohacking shows how systems of innovation and security are moving beyond the scope of government control.

The consequences for arms-control regimes will be profound. In the 20th century, states were the main developers and the main targets of cutting-edge weapons. The most devastating of these were developed primarily through state programmes. Countries sought to curtail the use of certain weapons on the battlefield and against civilians primarily through international agreements, out of mutual self-interest and on humanitarian grounds.

At the international level, we remain heavily dependent on 20th-century treaty systems. Biological and chemical weapons, for example, are addressed through two separate treaties: the Biological Weapons Convention, which came into force in 1975, and the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.

As with all international treaties, these are products of their time, as well as of politically fraught negotiations. They are imperfect: the treaty on biological weapons, for example, lacks a formal system for the verification of state compliance.

The treaty on chemical weapons, in contrast, boasts a legally binding system of verification through on-site inspections of facilities. However, there are ambiguities about non-lethal chemical weapons, which the treaty permits for use in law enforcement. Advances in science and technology are making such weapons increasingly versatile and sophisticated and, as such, potentially more attractive. For both biological and chemical weapons, there is concern that such failings will undermine state confidence in treaty regimes, potentially resulting in international arms races.

Changes in security, science and technology are making these issues increasingly significant, and might force a transformation in how we think about preventing the development and use of biological and chemical weapons. International security, for example, is no longer solely a question of state-on-state military threats: it has come to include public health, transnational crime, international terrorism and environmental issues.

At the University of Bath we are working on the Biochemical Security 2030 project, which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. It involves studying technologies that challenge existing modes of oversight, and emerging sites of policy development that lie outside international treaty negotiations.

An interesting example of both comes from synthetic biology and its implications for security. This interdisciplinary field has its roots in academic efforts in the US, dating from about 2003, to bring engineering into biology. Several products of synthetic biology have already reached the market, and it is claimed that the field could yield breakthroughs in areas such as drug development, chemical and fuel production, and public health.

Aspects of synthetic biology have also become symbolic of the security challenges posed by 21st-century biotechnology. This stems from a long history of countries weaponising scientific advances, and the concern that the increasing accessibility of synthetic biology may facilitate illegal drug development and terrorism. In most fields, such concerns have followed scientific advances; synthetic biology is unique in that concerns were present from the start, and in some senses have run ahead of its concrete achievements. A number of horizon-scanning, risk-assessment and educational initiatives have been carried out, revealing many of the conceptual, practical and political challenges involved in pre-emptively discussing and addressing concerns related to single pieces of research.

To investigate what UK universities can do and are doing to adapt to this changing security environment, we have sought to develop an understanding of the obstacles and opportunities for policy-making in this area, starting at a local level. We examined the feasibility of forming a network of universities with chemistry and biology departments in south-west England, and hosted a meeting that brought together researchers in relevant fields, staff responsible for biological and chemical safety, and policy-shapers at national and international levels. In particular, we were interested in how such a network might contribute to technology foresight, the education of scientists about misuse, and the development and sharing of good practice in terms of ethics and laboratory security.

Regional Innovation Biochemical Security Meeting, Held by the Biochemical Security 2030 Project, Universtity of Bath, May 1st 2014.  Image: R.Guthrie

Regional Innovation Biochemical Security Meeting, Held by the Biochemical Security 2030 Project, Universtity of Bath, May 1st 2014. Image: R.Guthrie

The first thing we found, perhaps not surprisingly, was that people dealing with international biochemical security and people working in laboratories often used different terms to discuss similar issues. At the local level, for example, laboratory safety is not always thought of as being a security issue.

As a consequence, safety practices are not always conceived of and communicated in security terms. This is significant for two reasons. First, outsiders might be led to underestimate security at an institution. For example, many activities that take place at a local level under the label of health and safety, particularly those related to physical containment, are actually already performing security functions.

Second, preventing certain threats requires going beyond normal biosafety infrastructures. Think, for example, about the development of a novel pathway that would make it easier to synthesise a controlled substance, or the possibility of a terror threat from inside an institution, or the theft and diversion of research data. Managing such threats requires work with researchers and their support staff and managers to develop a fuller understanding of what biochemical security is, and how to practise it in the workplace.

A second observation was that there were already a number of local and national networks devoted to developing and sharing best practice in biosafety at universities. Given the right resources and incentives, these networks could facilitate the development of a culture of biochemical security in universities.

Finally, during our meeting and follow-up, it became clear that universities varied in how they treated the relationship between the processes of ethical review and health and safety. It is not always clear who has the responsibility or expertise to flag up concerns about the potential for research to be misused, or at what point of the research process, from grant funding through to publication, such concerns should be raised.

These issues, particularly in relation to pathogen research, are probably set to receive more attention in the future. Recent biosecurity reviews in the US and the Netherlands were followed up by one in Germany, where a new legal framework for pathogen research was recommended. And The Guardian reported in December that UK labs handling human and animal pathogens had “reported more than 100 accidents or near misses to safety regulators in the past five years”.

Although we often think of security as a brake on innovation, providing biosecurity also requires continued innovation to develop the necessary technologies and workable practices. The south-west alone has many university health and safety professionals and bench researchers who could help create educational initiatives and improved university policies. And even though the UK is already part of international initiatives on biological and chemical security, there is untapped potential to innovate in this area—particularly in shaping good practice linked to the objectives for responsible innovation laid out by Research Councils UK.

Universities alone cannot fully negate the risks posed by innovation. But they can raise researchers’ awareness of security concerns and choose to deal only with companies that have appropriate ethical, safety and security accreditation. Some synthetic biologists at American universities have already contributed to the emergence of security screening by adopting this approach when working with companies that produce DNA sequences.

Finally, universities can facilitate and encourage the creation of testbeds to improve foresight and responsiveness to the potential security concerns raised by scientific advances. Several such efforts already exist, such as the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center in the US and the Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation at King’s College London, as well as our more modest initiative at Bath. Given the breadth and seriousness of the issues, there is plenty of scope, and need, for more.

By Brett Edwards and David Galbreath
Research Fortnight

Brett Edwards and David Galbreath work in the department of politics, languages and international studies at the University of Bath.

Something to add? Email

This article also appeared in Research Fortnight

This article was published in Research Professional, the UK’s leading independent source of news, analysis, funding opportunities and jobs for the academic research community.

Dual-use for Dummies (now with videos)

Dual-use for Dummies

Dr Supatra Marsh, BBSRC Policy Fellow at the Society of Biology, is organising Policy Lates: Dodging a biological bullet – what can we learn from the US and Europe about Biosecurity?

During my BBSRC science policy fellowship at the Society of Biology I have been organising the next Policy Lates event focussing on dual-use research. Just in case there are any of you out there that are asking the question ‘what is dual-use research?’ I have tried to write a beginner’s guide to dual-use and biosecurity; dual-use for dummies if you will!

According to the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) in the United States, dual-use or dual-use research of concern (DURC) is defined as “research that, based on current understanding, can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, products, or technologies that could be directly misapplied by others to pose a threat to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, the environment or material“ 1. In other words, the scientific research being done has a dual-use; the initial purpose of it being carried out in the first place – usually to benefit the public’s health or for the advancement of science – and also an unintended use such as bioterrorism.

A much publicised example of DURC came to the fore in 2012 when two papers were published on research into the bird flu virus, H5N1. These so-called “gain-of-function” studies detailed genetic descriptions of mutations that conferred the virus with the ability to be transmitted between mammals. This research sparked controversy because of the risk of misuse of this information which could lead to disastrous consequences such as accidental or intentional release of the modified virus. Gain-of-function experiments result in enhanced capability – in this case the bird flu virus was genetically modified giving it the ability to cross the species-barrier i.e. pass from mammal to mammal whereas before it was only transmissible between birds.

B0006927 Influenza virus

The aim of these gain-of-function experiments is to try and stay one step ahead of the virus which naturally mutates at a rapid rate. These experiments confirmed that the virus could indeed evolve to become transmissible between mammals. This knowledge means that the science community is arguably better informed about how to deal with this situation, should it occur. This has implications for vaccine development and improved surveillance.

Scientists pride themselves on the ability to freely share knowledge for scientific advancement. However if publications of dual-use research are open access this means that potentially anyone could get their hands on this information and it could be used to cause harm such as by developing bioweapons. The NSABB recommended that the mutational sequences be redacted in the publication of the bird flu gain-of-function experiments. This goes against the scientific ethos of openly sharing information, repeating experiments to confirm reliability of results and providing evidence to support the conclusions of the research. In 2012, the NSABB reversed their decision and both papers were published in their entirety in Nature and Science.

So the question now is – how shall we move forward? The US has recently announced a halt on funding of ‘gain-of-function’ experiments on dangerous microbes or toxins, including influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) 2. This is to provide time to do a robust risk-benefit analysis. Scientists warn that seasonal flu vaccines and antiviral drug development will be hampered by this moratorium 3.

There is also the problem of inconsistencies in biosecurity regulations in different countries. This risk-benefit assessment process should not only concern the US but be an international undertaking. The consequences of this research will be global, whether it be beneficial or harmful. Will we be able to act in time to dodge this potential ‘biological bullet’?

This issue was the the focus of a Society of Biology Policy Lates event, which will brought together biosecurity experts from the US and Europe to discuss the situation in their countries. Videos of the talks are below:

Event details, Policy Lates: Dodging a biological bullet – what can we learn from the US and Europe about Biosecurity? Thursday 20th November 2014, 18:00-21:00 – Charles Darwin House, 12 Roger Street


This article orginally appeared on the Society of Biology Website and was Posted by on October 27, 2014

Cover Image; ASMBiodefense 2012 – H5N1 Research Discussion, Taken on February 29th. Some rights reserved Chris Condayan for Microbe World.

Could incapacitating chemical weapons start an arms race?

By Michael Crowley, University of Bradford and Malcolm Dando, University of Bradford

On October 26 2002, to end a three-day siege on a theatre in Moscow by Chechen terrorists, Russian security forces used a secret incapacitating chemical agent (ICA) weapon believed to affect the central nervous system. Although most of the 900 people being held hostage were freed, well over 100 of them were killed by the chemical agent; many more continue to suffer long-term health problems.

To this day, the Russian authorities refuse to disclose what weapon they used. Nor will they provide any details of the nature and levels of any incapacitating chemical weapons they may have developed or stockpiled.

But despite the official silence, a new report by the universities of Bradford and Bath documents evidence of continued Russian research into these chemical agents. That research includes computer modelling of “calmative gas” flows in enclosed spaces, as well as studies of the interaction of potential ICAs with human receptor sites.

And Russia is not alone; a number of other states have also conducted research that is potentially applicable to the study or development of ICA weapons. But the international community has turned a collective blind eye to such activities. Apparently, they consider the issue just too difficult to deal with.

The forthcoming Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention in December 2014 will be a chance to rectify this omission before more countries become intrigued by these weapons – which would intensify the threat that they will proliferate and be dangerously misused.

Dangerous stuff

There is no agreed definition of incapacitating chemical agents, but they can be described as a disparate range of substances – including pharmaceutical chemicals, bioregulators, and toxins – intended to act on the body’s core biochemical and physiological systems to cause prolonged but non-permanent disability.

They include centrally acting agents, which produce loss of consciousness, sedation, hallucination, incoherence, disorientation, or paralysis. At inappropriate doses, death can result.

Proponents of these weapons have long promoted their development and use in law enforcement; they have also been pushed as a possible tool for military use, especially in locations where civilians and combatants are close together or intermingled.

In contrast, a broad range of observers, including scientific and medical organisations such as the British Medical Association, have pointed out that their production and use presents potentially grave dangers to human health and well-being.

ICA weapons can clearly be used for the purposes of torture and other human rights violations. If their development for law enforcement is tolerated, it could also become an excellent cover for covert offensive chemical weapons programmes, with the danger of further proliferation to both state and non-state actors. That slippery slope could ultimately lead to chemical warfare.

The new Bradford-Bath report examines contemporary research on a range of pharmaceutical chemicals potentially useful for the study or development of ICA weapons. As well as documenting research by Russian scientists, the report highlights the development and marketing by Chinese companies of ICA weapons employing an unknown anaesthetic agent for use against individuals, and the possession of such weapons in 2012 by the Chinese Peoples’ Liberation Army.

The report highlights previous research into ICAs by Israel and the notorious use of an ICA weapon as an attempted assassination tool by Mossad on at least one occasion, in 1997. The more recent unconfirmed allegations of ICA weapons use by government forces during the ongoing Syrian civil war]are also explored.

The report also highlights potentially relevant chemical and life science research conducted since 1997 in the Czech Republic, India, Iran, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Blurred lines

ICA weapons clearly come under the scope of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which came into force in 1997 and which is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). the use of any toxic chemicals as weapons in armed conflict is absolutely prohibited.

But there are differing interpretations as to whether such toxic chemicals may be employed for law enforcement purposes, and if so, in what circumstances and under what constraints. This ambiguity has never been satisfactorily addressed by the States that are party to the Convention; no OPCW policy-making organ has made any interpretative statements to clarify it.

That leaves CWC signatories to interpret the treaty and raises the risk that a “permissive” interpretation may evolve. And while various countries (including the UK and the US) have formally declared that they are not developing and do not possess ICA weapons, other states that have conducted ICA research remain silent.

If the OPCW does not act decisively to address the situation, more and more countries may start to harness advances in relevant scientific disciplines for ICA weapons development programs – or may be accused of doing so. And that, in turn, may encourage further states co conduct their own ICA weapons research and development programs – or even to start exploring an even broader range of chemical agents.

There is now a window of opportunity for states to halt the potential proliferation and misuse of these weapons. If they do not, we could face a new type of arms race, and perhaps the erosion of the prohibition on chemical weapons.


This article was originally published on The Conversation.
Read the original article.


Cover Image:

Images of the the 750-lb M43 cluster bomb (bottom) – A BZ munition developed by the U.S. Military in the early 1960s. Images taken from Technical manual, U.S. Army, equipment data sheets, chemical weapons and munitions, TM 43-0001-26-2, Department of the Army, Washington, DC, 29th April 1982. (pp14, 16) and printed in the new report.

Down the slippery slope? A study of contemporary dual-use chemical and life-science research potentially applicable to incapacitating chemical agent weapons

On 26th October 2002, Russian Security Forces employed a secret incapacitating chemical agent (ICA) weapon believed to affect the central nervous system, in their attempt to save 900 hostages held in a Moscow theatre by armed Chechen fighters. Although the hostages were freed, over 120 of them were killed by the chemical agent and many more continue to suffer long term health problems. Twelve years later, the Russian authorities have refused to disclose the ICA weapon they employed. Instead a new report highlights continued research by scientists in Russia and other countries into such chemical agents.

“BBQ-901 tranquiliser gun” being displayed at a People's Liberation Army “open day”, Shek Kong Air Base, Hong Kong, 2nd May 2011. © Gordon Arthur / King Arthur's Writes

“BBQ-901 tranquiliser gun” being displayed at a People’s Liberation Army “open day”, Shek Kong Air Base, Hong Kong, 2nd May 2011. © Gordon Arthur / King Arthur’s Writes. Image taken from new report.

‘Down the slippery slope?’ a study produced jointly by the Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project and the Biochemical Security 2030 Project, examines contemporary neuroscience and research into a range of pharmaceutical chemicals potentially applicable to the study and development of ICA weapons, that has taken place since the coming into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997. This report highlights specific areas where concerns or mis-perceptions might arise as to the nature and intended uses of chemical and life-science research. The report also explores how States can ensure that such dual-use research is not utilised in prohibited chemical weapons development, or misinterpreted as being utilised for such purposes.

As well as documenting contemporary research by Russian scientists into ICAs, the report highlights the possession of ICA weapons by the Chinese Peoples’ Liberation Army, their previous use as an attempted assassination tool by the Israeli security services, and examines unconfirmed allegations of ICA weapons use in Syria. In addition, the report explores potentially relevant research activities previously undertaken since 1997 in the Czech Republic, India, Iran, the United Kingdom and the United States, and includes recent responses from the States concerned.

Professor Rod Flower, FRS , Professor of Biochemical Pharmacology at the William Harvey Research Institute said:

“Lest we forget. Twelve years ago, Russian Special Forces terminated the seige of a Moscow Theatre by Chechen Separatists by pumping a potent anaesthetic gas into the ventilation system. During the operation, 130 hostages lost their lives following exposure to the gas, prompting a widespread debate on the use of such ‘incapacitating chemical weapons’. Crowley & Dando’s Report provides an in-depth study of the subsequent development of incapacitating chemical weapons by states around the world. It provides a valuable resource for those who are concerned about the proliferation of such weapons as well as a timely reminder that there is no such thing as a ‘safe’ incapacitating chemical agent.”

Steven Rose, Emeritus Professor of Biology (neuroscience) Department of Life Health and Chemical Sciences stated:

“Continuing advances in neuroscience, pharmacology and biotechnology are fueling a new interest in the military and law-enforcement potential of incapacitating agents (ICAs)–‘non-lethal’ or better ‘less-lethal’ anaesthetic or disorienting chemicals . Published on the 12th anniversary of the disastrous use of an ICA in the attempt to rescue hostages trapped in a Moscow theatre, Crowley and Dando have compiled an authoritative account of the state of the art in ICAs. Drawing on open-source literature, they assess the scale of research and development of the agents among the major international players, and conclude with recommendations as to how the international treaties prohibiting chemical weapons should be amended to deal with these new threats. An important and salutary report.”


Report available here.


Cover Image: A special forces soldier runs across the road during the storming of the Dubrovka theatre in Moscow EPA Photo / Sergei Chirikov

Text: Michael Crowley