Neuroscience-Based Weapons

  • Tatyana NovossiolovaEmail author
  • Malcolm Dando


The focus of this chapter is on the efforts aimed at preventing that cutting-edge scientific and technological advances in the areas of biological and chemical sciences are misused for the development of weapons targeted at the nervous system. It advances the argument that the effective governance of dual-use research requires the active engagement of the chemical and biological science communities. The chapter begins by looking into the issue of dual-use science and how it relates to the international chemical and biological disarmament and non-proliferation regime. It then reviews the efforts made by States Parties within the framework of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention to strengthen the international prohibitions against chemical and biological weapons. The chapter further reviews various scientist engagement initiatives that seek to promote a culture of responsibility among researchers with a particular emphasis on awareness-raising and education activities regarding dual-use issues among those in the field of neuroscience. It concludes by identifying options for enhancing scientist participation in strengthening the chemical and biological disarmament regime.


  1. Advisory Board on Education and Outreach. 2018. Report on the role of education and outreach in preventing the re-emergence of chemical weapons. ABEO-5/1. 12 February. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  2. Albania et al. 2018. Aerosolisation of central nervous system-acting chemicals for law enforcement purposes. RC-4/NAT.26. OPCW, The Hague. 30 November.Google Scholar
  3. Bale, J.F. 2015. Virus and immune-mediated encephalitides: Epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, prevention. Pediatric Neurology 53: 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bianchi, D., J. Cooper, J. Gordon, J. Heemskerk, R. Hodes, G. Koob, et al. 2018. Neuroethics for the National Institutes of Health BRAIN Initiative. Journal of Neuroscience 38 (50): 10583–10585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. 1972. Accessed 7 Mar 2019.
  6. BRAIN Initiative. 2019. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  7. Brundage, M., S. Avin, J. Clark, H. Toner, P. Eckersley, B. Garfinkel, et al. 2018. The malicious use of artificial intelligence: Forecasting, prevention, and mitigation. Oxford: Future of Humanity Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Chemical Weapons Convention. 1993. Accessed 7 Mar 2019.
  9. China and Pakistan. 2018. Proposal for the development of a model code of conduct for biological scientists under the biological weapons convention. BWC/MSP/2018/MX.2/WP.9. 9 August. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  10. Crowley, M., M. Dando, and L. Shang, eds. 2018a. Preventing chemical weapons: Arms Control and disarmament as the sciences converge. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.Google Scholar
  11. Crowley, M., L. Shang, and M. Dando. 2018b. Preventing chemical weapons as sciences converge: Focus must extend beyond 20th-century technologies. Science 362: 753–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dando, M. 2003. The danger to the Chemical Weapons Convention from incapacitating weapons. First CWC Review Conference Paper No 4. Resource document. University of Bradford. Accessed 5 Mar 2019.
  13. Dando, M. R. (2015). Neuroscience and the future of chemical-biological weapons. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (See Chapter 6: Novel Neuroweapons, particularly pages 84–86).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dando, M.R. 2018. Advances in understanding targets in the central nervous system (CNS). In Preventing chemical weapons: Arms control and disarmament as the sciences converge, ed. M. Crowley, M. Dando, and L. Shang, 228–258. London: Royal Society of Chemistry.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eight Review Conference of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. 2017. Final document of the eighth review conference. BWC/CONF.VIII/4. 11 January. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  16. EU Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Consortium. 2019. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  17. Euro-Mediterranean Master’s Degree in Neuroscience and Biotechnology. 2019. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  18. Franz, D.R. 1997. Defense against toxin weapons. In Medical aspects of chemical and biological warfare, ed. F.R. Sidell, E.T. Takafuji, and D.R. Franz, 603–619. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army.Google Scholar
  19. Galston, A. 1972. Science and social responsibility: a case in history. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 196 (4): 223–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Greely, H., C. Grady, K. Ramos, W. Chiong, J. Eberwine, N. Farahany, et al. 2018. Neuroethics guiding principles for the NIH BRAIN initiative. Journal of Neuroscience 38 (50): 10586–10588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henderson, T.J., N.M. Elsayed, and H. Salem. 2016. Chemical warfare agents and nuclear weapons. In Inhalation toxicology, ed. H. Salem and S.A. Katz, 3rd ed., 489–522. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  22. Human Brain Project. 2019a. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  23. ———. 2019b. Ethics and society. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  24. ———. 2019c. HBP education overview. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  25. ———. 2019d. HBP curriculum – Interdisciplinary brain science. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  26. ———. 2019e. Research, ethics, and societal impact. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  27. InterAcademy Partnership. 2016. Doing global science: A guide to responsible conduct in the global research enterprise. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kaempfer, R., et al. 2002. Defense against biologic warfare with Superantigen toxins. IMAJ 4: 520–523.Google Scholar
  29. Mancini, G. and Revill, J. 2008. Fostering the biosecurity norm: biosecurity education for the next generation of life scientists. Landau Network Fondazione Volta. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  30. Meeting of the States Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. 2017. Report of the meeting of states parties. BWC/MSP/2017/6. 19 December. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  31. Meyer, J. S. and Quenzer, L. F. 2013. Psychopharmacology: drugs, the brain, and behavior. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates. See Chapter 3, Chemical signalling by neurotransmitters and hormones, page 78.Google Scholar
  32. Middlebrook, J.L., and D.R. Franz. 1997. Botulinum toxins. In Medical aspects of chemical and biological warfare, ed. F.R. Sidell, E.T. Takafuji, and D.R. Franz, 643–654. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army.Google Scholar
  33. Multiple Use of Chemicals. 2019. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  34. National Academies of Sciences. 2018. Governance of dual use research in the life sciences: Advancing global consensus on research oversight: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  35. National Academy of Sciences. 1989. On being a scientist. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  36. ———. 1995. On being a scientist: Responsible conduct in research. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  37. National Research Council. 2009. Opportunities in neuroscience for future military applications. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  38. Nixdorff, K., et al. 2018. Dual-use nano-neurotechnology: An assessment of the implications of trends in science and technology. Politics and the Life Sciences 37 (2): 180–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Novossiolova, T., L. Bakanidze, and D. Perkins. 2020. Effective and comprehensive governance of biological risks: A network of networks approach for sustainable capacity building. In Synthetic biology 2020: Frontiers in risk analysis and governance, ed. B. Trump, I. Linkov, J. Kuzma, and C. Cummings. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Novossiolova, T., J. Whitman, M. Dando. 2019. Altering an appreciative system: Lessons from incorporating dual-use concerns into the responsible science education of biotechnologists. Futures 108:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. 2019a. Technical Secretariat: Facilitating the implementation of the convention. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  42. ———. 2019b. Scientific Advisory Board: Keeping pace with scientific and technological change. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  43. ———. 2019c. Advisory Board on education and outreach: Supporting the OPCW’s engagement with external partners. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  44. ———. 2019d. Fires: The OPCW’s short documentary video project. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  45. ———. 2019e. The Hague ethical guidelines. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  46. Pinchuk, I.V., E.J. Beswick, and V.E. Reyes. 2010. Staphylococcal enterotoxins. Toxins 2: 2177–2177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rommelfanger, K., S. Jeong, C. Montojo, and M. Zirlinger. 2019. Neuroethics: Think global. Neuron 101 (3): 363–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Royal Society. 2012. Brain waves module 3: Neuroscience, conflict and security. London: The Royal Society.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. ———. 2019. Brain waves. Accessed 5 Mar 2019.
  50. Salles, A., J. Bjaalie, K. Evers, M. Farisco, B.T. Fothergill, M. Guerrero, et al. 2019. The Human Brain Project: responsible brain research for the benefit of society. Neuron 101 (3): 380–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Scientific Advisory Board. 2018. Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on developments in science and technology for the fourth special session of the conference of the states parties to review the operation of the chemical weapons convention. RC-4/DG.1.30 April. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  52. Security Council Committee established pursuant to Resolution 1540. 2019. Programme of work. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  53. Shang, L., M. Crowley, and M.R. Dando. 2018. Act now to close chemical-weapons loophole. Nature 562: 344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sidell, F.R. 1997. Nerve agents. In Medical aspects of chemical and biological warfare, ed. F.R. Sidell, E.T. Takafuji, and D.R. Franz, 129–179. Washington, D.C.: Office of the Surgeon General, Department of the Army.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Squire, L. R. et al. 2013. Fundamental neuroscience, 4th ed. Academic Press: Elsevier. (See Box 2.1, The Neuron Doctrine, page 16).Google Scholar
  56. Test and Evaluation Command. 1982. Joint CB technical data source book. Dugway: US Army Dugway Proving Ground. (Volume VI. Toxin Agents, Part One: Botulinum Toxin).Google Scholar
  57. Tucker, J. 2008. The body’s own bioweapons. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 64 (1): 16–22; 56–57.Google Scholar
  58. UK Research and Innovation. 2019. Interdisciplinary network on teaching of ethics for neuroscientists. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  59. Ukraine, Japan and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2017. Awareness-raising, education, and outreach: Recent developments. BWC/MSP/2017/WP.22. 6 December. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
  60. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540. 2004. Accessed 7 Mar 2019.
  61. Wright, L., C. Pope, and J. Liu. 2009. The nervous system as a target for chemical warfare agents. In Handbook of toxicology of chemical warfare agents, ed. C. Ramesh and C. Gupta, 463–480. Elsevier: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Fellow, Law Program, Center for the Study of DemocracySofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.Leverhulme Emeritus Fellow, Division of Peace Studies and International DevelopmentUniversity of BradfordBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations