Neurobiology: A case study of the imminent militarization of biology

International Review of the Red Cross

Volumn 87, Issue 859, 2005, Pages 553-571

  Wheelis, Mark ^a   Dando, Malcolm ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRADFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85016286294     PISSN: 18163831     EISSN: 16075889     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1816383100184383     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Matthew Meselson, “Averting the hostile exploitation of biotechnology,” Chemical and Biological Conventions Bulletin, Vol. 48, June 2000, pp. 16–19.
2. William Cohen, Proliferation: Threat and Response, Department of Defense, Washington DC, 1997.
3. Steven M. Block, “Living Nightmares: Biological Threats Enabled by Molecular Biology,” The New Terror: Facing the Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons, Sidney D. Drell, Abraham D. Sofaer, George D. Wilson (eds.), Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, 1999, pp. 39–75.
4. George Poste, “Advances in biotechnology: Promise or peril,” 2002, available at (visited 24 August 2005).
5. Claire Fraser and Malcolm Dando, “Genomics and future bioweapons: The need for preventive action by the biomedical community,” Nature Genetics, Vol. 29, 2001, pp. 253–255.
6. James B. Petro, Theodore R. Plasse and Jack A. McNulty, “Biotechnology: Impact on biological warfare and biodefense,” Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, Vol. 1, 2003, pp. 161–168.
7. Mark Wheelis, “Does the ‘new biology’ mean new weapons?” Arms Control Today, July/August 2004, p. 6.
8. Office of Transnational Issues, The Darker Bioweapons Future, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC, 3 November 2003, p. 1.
9. The Darker Bioweapons Future.
10. Malcolm Dando, The New Biological Weapons: Threat, Proliferation and Control, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, 2001.
11. Nancy C. Andreasen, Brave New Brain: Conquering Mental Illness in the Era of the Genome, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
12. Poste, Brave New Brain: Conquering Mental Illness in the Era of the Genome, (note 4).
13. Brave New Brain: Conquering Mental Illness in the Era of the Genome.
14. Stanley Finger, Minds behind the Brain: A History of the Pioneers and their Discoveries, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.
15. Dai Rees and Steven Rose, (eds.), The New Brain Sciences: Perils and Prospects, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
16. World Health Organization, Mental Health: New Understanding, New Hope, World Health Report 2001, WHO, Geneva.
17. Jeffrey L. Cummings and Michael S. Maga, Neuropsychiatry and Behavioural Neuroscience, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003. Some thirty such regularities are discussed, and it is clear that what is being described is a mechanistic science. For example, the first several principles state: “Brain-behaviour relationships underlying neuropsychiatric syndromes are rule-governed and reproducible across individuals (…) All mental processes derive from brain processes (…) Neuro-psychiatric symptoms are manifestations of brain dysfunction (…) [which] reflect abnormalities of underlying brain function, whether produced by genetic, structural or environmental influence…”
18. Anon, “Breakthrough of the year: The runners-up,” Science, No. 302, 2003, pp. 2039–2040.
19. Avshalom Caspi et al., “Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene,” Science, No. 301, 2003, pp. 386–389.
20. Science.
21. The researchers also demonstrated a similar impact of childhood maltreatment on those carrying one or two short alleles. An analogous association has been shown in monkeys (see Christina S. Barr et al. “Sexual dichotomy of an interaction between early adversity and the serotonin transporter gene promoter variant in rhesus monkeys,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Vol. 101, 2004, pp. 12358–12363)
22. in other children (see Joan Kaufman et al., “Social supports and serotonin transporter gene moderate depression in maltreated children,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Vol. 101, 2004, pp. 17316–17321).
23. However, the latter report showed, too, that adequate social support could greatly reduce the risk to such maltreated children. This happy result also tends to confirm another principle that “[t]he beneficial effects of psychotherapy are mediated through changes in brain function” (see Cummings and Maga, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., note 18).
24. Unfortunately, more recent work has again demonstrated the link between the serotonin transporter promoter polymorphism and suicide (see Pao-Yen Lin and Gaochuan Tsai, “Association between serotonin transporter gene promoter polymorphism and suicide: Results of a meta-analysis,” Bio. Psychiatry, Vol. 55, pp. 1023–1030).
25. Ahmad R. Hariri et al, “Serotonin transporter genetic variation and the response of the human amygdala,” Science, Vol. 297, 2002, pp. 400–403. These researchers used a form of functional magnetic resonance imaging to assess subjects' responses to frightening facial images. They divided people into two groups: those with two long alleles of the 5HTT gene and those with one or two copies of the short form of the gene. The subjects were all healthy but nevertheless there was a clear difference in the responses of the two groups. People with the short form showed greater activity in the amygdala in response to frightening stimuli than those with only the long form. The difference was located in the right amygdala, consistent with the right hemisphere's known role in processing facial images.
26. Ahmad R. Hariri et al., “A susceptibility gene for affective disorders and the response of the human amygdala,” Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, Vol. 62, 2005, pp. 146–152.
27. Tomas Furmark et al., “Serotonin transporter polymorphism related to amygdala excitability and symptom severity in patients with social phobia,” Neuroscience Letters, Vol. 362, 2004, pp. 189–192.
28. See Christina S. Barr et al. “Rearing conditions and rh5-HTTLPR interact to influence limbic-hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis response to stress in infant macaques,” Biol. Psychiatry, Vol. 55, 2004, pp. 733–738. Moreover, the serotonin transporter is not the only gene for which this new imaging genomics approach is producing such results
29. see Ahmad R. Hariri, and Daniel R. Weinberger, “Imaging genomics,” British Medical Bulletin, Vol. 65, 2003, pp. 259–270.
30. Editorial, “New technologies and the loophole in the Convention,” Chemical Weapons Convention Bulletin, Vol. 23, 1990, pp. 1–2.
31. Graham Cooper and Paul Rice, (eds.), “Special issue — chemical casualties: Centrally acting incapacitants,” Journal of the Royal Army Medical Corps, Vol. 148 (4), 2001, pp. 388–391.
32. Research and Technology Organization, Non-Lethal Weapons and Future Peace Enforcement Operations, TR-SAS-040, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, November 2004.
33. Martin Furmanski and Malcolm R. Dando, “Midspectrum incapacitant programs,” in M. Wheelis, L. Rosza and M. Dando, Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons from 1945 to the Present. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 236–251.
34. Robin Coupland, “Incapacitating chemical weapons: A year after the Moscow theatre siege,” The Lancet, Vol. 362, 2003, p. 1346.
35. Joan M. Lakoski et al., The Advantages and Limitations of Calmatives for Use as a Non-Lethal Technique, Applied Research Laboratory, College of Medicine, Pennsylvania State University, 2000. According to the report, the researchers identified several drug classes (e.g. alpha2-adrenoreceptor agonists) and individual drugs (…dexmedetomidine) found appropriate for immediate consideration as non-lethal [agents] involving e.g. unconsciousness or calming.
36. Malcolm R. Dando, The Danger to the Chemical Weapons Convention from Incapacitating Chemicals, First CWC Review Conference, Paper No. 4, University of Bradford, March 2003.
37. A Survey of Biological and Biochemical Weapons Related Research Activities in France, Country Study No. 2, Sunshine Project, November 2004.
38. Michael Williams et al., “Same brain, new decade: Challenges in CNS drug discovery in the postgenomic, postproteomic era,” Annual Reports in Medicinal Chemistry, Vol. 36, 2001 pp. 1–10.
39. Broad Area Announcement, Non-Lethal Weapons Science and Technology: Applied Research and Technology Development Efforts, M67854–05-R-5009, 2004, Contracts Home Page, US Marine Corps.
40. National Research Council, Opportunities in Biotechnology for Future Army Operations, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2001.
41. David P. Fidler, “‘Non-lethal’ weapons and international law: Three perspectives on the future,” Medicine, Conflict and Survival Vol. 17, 2000, pp. 194–200.
42. Paul L. Howard, Technical Report: Operational Aspects of Agent CS, Deseret Test Center, Fort Douglas, Utah, April 1973, DTC-FR-S700M. The principal use of CS was for terrain denial (persistent CS was applied in enormous amounts on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and around the perimeter of isolated US fire-bases). The most common combat use was to drive enemy troops from cover to increase their vulnerability to lethal fire, and to break combat when US troops were ambushed.
43. Bryan Bender, “US testing nonlethal weapons arsenal for use in Iraq,” Boston Globe, 5 August 2005.
44. John Hart, Frida Kuhlau and Jacqueline Simon, “Chemical and biological weapons developments and arms control,” Chapter 16, in SIPRI Yearbook 2003: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003, pp. 645–682.
45. Mark Bowden, “The dark art of interrogation,” Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 292, October 2003, pp. 51–76.
46. Julian P. Perry-Robinson, Disabling Chemical Weapons: A Documented Chronology of Events, 1945–2003, Harvard Sussex Program, University of Sussex, 2003, pp. 8–9.
47. James Meek, “People the law forgot,” The Guardian, 3 December 2003, available at (visited 24 August 2005).
48. P. Slevin and J. Stephens, “Detainees' medical files shared: Guantanamo interrogators' access criticized,” Washington Post, 10 June 2004, A01
49. Michael C. Anderson et al., “Neural systems underlying the suppression of unwanted memories,” Science, Vol. 303, 2004, pp. 232–235.
50. The Pain Merchants: Security Equipment and Its Use in Torture and Other Ill-Treatment. Amnesty International, London, 2 December 2003.
51. Jose M. Carmena et al., “Learning to control a brain-machine interface for reaching and grasping by primates,” PLoS Biology, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2003, pp. 1–16.
52. Ben Harder, “Scientists ‘drive’ rats by remote control,” National Geographic News, 1 May 2002.
53. Robert Carlson, “The pace and proliferation of biological technologies,” Biosecurity and Bioterrorism, Vol. 1,2003, pp. 203–214.
54. Mark Wheelis, and Malcolm R. Dando, “Back to bioweapons?”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January/February 2003, pp. 40–46.
55. National Research Council, Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism, National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2004.
56. Elisa D. Harris and John D Steinbrunner, “Controlling dangerous pathogens,” Issues in Science and Technology Online, spring 2003, pp. 74–78.
57. Robin Coupland, and Kobi-Renee Leins, “Science and prohibited weapons”, Science, Vol. 308, 2005, p. 1841.