Skip to main content
Log in

A proposal for the classification of biological weapons sensu lato

  • Review
  • Published:
Theory in Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to historical and legislation reasons, the category of bioweapons is rather poorly defined. Authors often disagree on involving or excluding agents like hormones, psychochemicals, certain plants and animals (such as weeds or pests) or synthetic organisms. Applying a wide definition apparently threatens by eroding the regime of international legislation, while narrow definitions abandon several important issues. Therefore, I propose a category of ‘biological weapons sensu lato’ (BWsl) that is defined here as any tool of human aggression whose acting principle is based on disciplines of biology including particularly microbiology, epidemiology, medical biology, physiology, psychology, pharmacology and ecology, but excluding those based on inorganic agents. Synthetically produced equivalents (not necessarily exact copies) and mock weapons are also included. This definition does not involve any claim to subject all these weapons to international legislation but serves a purely scholarly purpose. BWsl may be properly categorized on the base of the magnitude of the human population potentially targeted (4 levels: individuals, towns, countries, global) and the biological nature of the weapons’ intended effects (4 levels: agricultural-ecological agents, and non-pathogenic, pathogenic, or lethal agents against humans).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atlas RM, Dando M (2006) The dual-use dilemma for the life sciences: perspectives, conundrums, and global solutions. Biosecur Bioterror 4:276–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cello J, Paul AV, Wimmer E (2002) Chemical synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science 297(5583):1016–1018

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cole LA (1999) Risks of publicity about bioterrorism: anthrax hoaxes and hype. Am J Infect Control 27:470–473

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dando MR (1994) Biological warfare in the 21st Century. Brassey’s, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dando M (2001) Genomics, bioregulators, cell receptors and potential biological weapons. Def Anal 17:239–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dando M (2011) Advances in neuroscience and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. Biotechnology Research International, Article ID 973851

  • Dennis DT, Inglesby TV, Henderson DA, Bartlett JG, Ascher MS, Eitzen E et al (2001) Tularemia as a biological weapon: medical and public health management. JAMA 285:2763–2773

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galston AW (2001) Falling leaves and ethical dilemmas: Agent Orange in Vietnam. In: Galston AW, Shurr EG (eds) New dimensions in bioethics: science, ethics and the formulation of public policy. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 109–124

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsdorf JR, Zilinskas RA (2005) New considerations in infectious disease outbreaks: the threat of genetically modified microbes. Clin Infect Dis 40:1160–1175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gould C, Hay A (2006) The South African biological weapons program. In: Wheelis M, Rozsa L, Dando M (eds) Deadly cultures: biological weapons since 1945. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 191–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie R (2010) Effectiveness of international efforts to control biological weapons: activities of the European Union and the limits of regime theory. Dissertation, University of Bath

  • Hall JA, Moore CBT (2008) Drug facilitated sexual assault—a review. J Forensic Leg Med 15:291–297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harris SH (2002) Factories of death: Japanese biological warfare, 1932–1945, and the American cover-up. Routledge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hart J (2006) The Soviet biological weapons program. In: Wheelis M, Rozsa L, Dando M (eds) Deadly cultures: biological weapons since 1945. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, pp 132–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Kagan E (2001) Bioregulators as instruments of terror. Clin Lab Med 21:607–618

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • League of Nations (1925) Protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare. http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/1925/text. Accessed 19 May 2014

  • Lockwood JA (2008) Six-legged soldiers: using insects as weapons of war. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Maher J, Pierpoint H (2011) Friends, status symbols and weapons: the use of dogs by youth groups and youth gangs. Crime Law Soc Change 55:405–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill JR, Unger CR (2010) Environmental histories of the Cold War. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Null G (2003) Germs, biological warfare, vaccinations: what you need to know. Seven Stories, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Phills JA, Harrold AJ, Whiteman GV, Perelmutter L (1972) Pulmonary infiltrates, asthma and eosinophilia due to Ascaris suum infestation in man. New Eng J Med 286:965–970

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prusiner SB (1982) Novel proteinaceous infectious particles cause scrapie. Science 216(4542):136–144

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • RIA Novosti (2012) Ukraine brings back naval killer dolphins. http://en.rian.ru/military_news/20121011/176548999.html. Accessed 19 May 2014

  • Roberge LF (2013) Analysis of introduced species as a form of biological weapon: part 1—theory and approaches. Biosafety 2:107

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotz LD, Khan AS, Lillibridge SR, Ostroff SM, Hughes JM (2002) Public health assessment of potential biological terrorism agents. Emerg Infect Dis 8:225–230

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rózsa L (2000) Spite, xenophobia, and collaboration between hosts and parasites. Oikos 91:396–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rózsa L (2009) The motivation for biological aggression is an inherent and common aspect of the human behavioural repertoire. Med Hypotheses 72:217–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scott-Ham M, Burton FC (2005) Toxicological findings in cases of alleged drug-facilitated sexual assault in the United Kingdom over a 3-year period. J Clin Forensic Med 12(4):175–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Strelkauskas AJ, Strelkauskas J, Moszyk-Strelkauskas D (2010) Microbiology: a clinical approach. Garland Science, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker JB (2012) Innovation, dual use, and security: managing the risks of emerging biological and chemical technologies. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations (1972) Convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) and toxin weapons and on their destruction. http://www.opbw.org/convention/conv.html. Accessed 5 May 2014

  • United Nations (1992) Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction. http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention. Accessed 19 May 2014

  • US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (2003) Biodefense research agenda for category B and C priority pathogens. NIH Publication No. 03-53152003. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/topics/BiodefenseRelated/Biodefense/Documents/categorybandc.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2014

  • van Courtland Moon JE (2006) The US biological weapons program. In: Wheelis M, Rozsa L, Dando M (eds) Deadly cultures: biological weapons since 1945. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, pp 9–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheelis ML (1998) First shots fired in biological warfare. Nature 395(6695):213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wheelis M, Sugishima M (2006) Terrorist use of biological weapons. In: Wheelis M, Rozsa L, Dando M (eds) Deadly cultures: biological weapons since 1945. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 284–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitby SM (2002) Biological warfare against crops. Palgrave, Hampshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Zierler D (2011) The invention of ecocide: Agent Orange, Vietnam, and the scientists who changed the way we think about the environment. University of Georgia Press, Athens

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the EU and Hungary, co-financed by the European Social Fund in the framework of TÁMOP 4.2.4. A/2-11-1-2012-0001 ‘National Excellence’ Program.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lajos Rozsa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rozsa, L. A proposal for the classification of biological weapons sensu lato. Theory Biosci. 133, 129–134 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-014-0204-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-014-0204-0

Keywords

Navigation