Advertisement

Biological Weapons Convention

  • Kathryn Nixdorff

Keywords

Security Council State Parti Bacillus Anthracis Multilocus Sequence Typing Antibody Array 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    United Nations (1925): Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Reprinted in: Geissler, E. (ed.) (1986) Biological and Toxin Weapons Today, Appendix 1, SIPRI, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 131.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dando, M.R. (2002): Preventing Biological Warfare. The Failure of American Leadership. Palgrave, Basingstoke and New York, pp. 3–4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chevrier, M.I. Chapter 15, The politics of biological disarmament. In: Wheelis, M., L. Rozsa and M. Dando (ed.), Deadly Cultures: Bioweapons from 1945 to the Present. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Tucker, J.B. (2002): A farewell to germs, International Security, Vol. Summer 2002, pp. 126–128Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nixdorff, K., M. Hotz, D. Schilling and M. Dando (2003): Biotechnology and the Biological Weapons Convention. Agenda, Münster, pp. 34–36. This chapter entitled The problem with the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention was authored by M. Dando.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dando, M.R. (2002): p. 6, op. cit. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dando, M.R. (2002): pp. 5–15, op. cit. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dahlberg, J.T. (1992): Russia admits violating biological weapons pact, The Los Angeles Times, Washington Edition, 15 September.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    United Nations (1972): Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2826 (XXVI), United Nations, New York. (full text available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nixdorff et al. (2003), op. cit. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    For a more thorough discussion of these mechanisms, see Sims, N.A. (2001): The Evolution of Biological Disarmament. SIPRI Chemical and Biological Warfare Studies No. 19, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Also, see Investigations of alledged non-compliance with the BTWC, BioWeapons Report 2004, pp. 35–50. Available at www.bwpp.org.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sims, N.A. (1988): The Diplomacy of Biological Disarmament: Vicissitudes of a Treaty in Force, 1975–1985, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meselson, M., J. Guillemin, M. Hugh-Jones, A. Langmuir, I. Popova, A. Shelokov and O. Yampolskaya (1994): The Sverdlovsk anthrax outbreak of 1979, Science, Vol. 266, pp. 1202–1208.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zilinskas, R.A. (1999): Cuban allegations of biological warfare by the United States: Assessing the evidence., Critical Reviews in Microbiology, Vol. 25, pp. 206–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Quoted from a letter addressed to all states parties from Ambassador S.I. Soutar, UK, chairman of the multilateral meeting, reported in BioWeapons Report 2004, p. 38, available at www.bwpp.org.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    BioWeapons Report 2004, p. 39, available at www.bwpp.orgGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    United Nations (1986): Second Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. Final Documents, Part II, Final Declaration. BWC/CONF. II/13/II. (full text available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    United Nations (1991): Third Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Final Document. BWC/CONF.III/23. (full text available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hunger, I. (1996): Confidence-building measures. In: Pearson, G.S., and M.R. Dando (ed.) (1996): Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention: Key Points for the Fourth Review Conference. Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford. Available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    United Nations (1994): Final Report. Special 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. BWC/SPCONF/1, Geneva.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    United Nations (1996): Fourth 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. Final Document. BWC/CONF.IV/9. (full text available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tóth, T. (1999): Time to wrap up, The CBW Conventions Bulletin, Vol. 46, pp. 1–3, December.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rissanen, J. (2000a): BWC update: Protocol negotiations continue through 25th anniversary of Convention’s entry into force, Disarmament Diplomacy, April, pp. 32–35.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    United Nations (2001): Protocol to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. BWC/AD HOC GROUP/56-2, Annex B, pp. 347–565.(full text available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pearson, G. S., N.A. Sims, M.R. Dando, and I.R. Kenyon (2000): The BTWC Protocol Evaluation Paper No 19: Proposed Complete Text for an Integrated Regime. Project on Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention, University of Bradford. Available at http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Dando, M. R., and G.S. Pearson (2000): The emerging BTWC Protocol: an essential prerequisite to prevent proliferation of biological weapons. Memorandum and oral evidence, Foreign Affairs Committee Eighth Report: Weapons of Mass Destruction. House of Commons, London, 25 July, pp. 55–59.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    PhRMA (1996): Statement of Principle on the Biological Weapons Convention. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Washington D.C.: May, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rissanen, J. (2000b): BWC update: The BWC Protocol negotiations 18th Session: Removing brackets, Disarmament Diplomacy, January/February 2000, pp. 21–25.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mahley, D.A. (2001): Statement to the Ad Hoc Group of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. Geneva, July 25, 2001.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Rosenberg, B. (2001): Bush treaty moves puts us in danger, Baltimore Sun, September 5.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miller, J., S. Engelberg, and W.J. Broad (2001): U.S. germ warfare research pushes treaty limits. The New York Times, September 4.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pomerantsev, A.P., N.A. Staritsin, Yu.V. Mockov and L.I. Marinin (1997): Expression of cereolysine AB genes in Bacillus anthracis vaccine strain ensures protection against experimental infection, Vaccine, Vol. 15, pp. 1846–1850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Miller, J. (2001): When is a bomb not a bomb? Germ experts confront U.S., The New York Times, September 5.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Butler, D. (2001): Bioweapons treaty in disarray as US blocks plans for verification, Nature, Vol. 414, p. 675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    United Nations (2002): Fifth 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. Final Document. BWC/CONF.V/17, Geneva 2002. Available at www.opbw.orgGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Valdes, J.J. (2000): Biological agent detection technology. In: Dando, M.R., G.S. Pearson, and T. Toth (ed.) (2000): Verification of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 181–197.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nixdorff, K., M. Hotz, D. Schilling, and M. Dando (2003): op. cit Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Köhler, G., and C. Milstein (1975): Continuous cultures of fused cells secreting antibody of predefined specificity, Nature, Vol. 256, pp. 495–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gatto-Menking, D.L., H. Yu, J.G. Bruno, M.T. Goode, M. Miller, and A.W. Zulich (1995): Preliminary testing and assay development for biotoxoids, viruses and bacterial spores using the ORIGEN immunomagnetic electrochemiluminescence sensor. In: Proceedings 5th International Symposium Protection Against Chemical and Biological Warfare Agents: Supplement, Stockholm, Sweden, 11–16 June 1995, National Defence Research Establishment, Umea: 65–72.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Borrebaeck, C.A.K. (2000): Antibodies in diagnostics-from immunoassays to protein chips, Immunology Today, Vol. 21, pp. 379–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mendoza, L.G., P. McQuary, A. Mongan, R. Gangadharan, S. Brignac, and M. Eggers (1999): High-throughput microarray-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), BioTechniques, Vol. 27, pp. 778–788.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
  46. 46.
  47. 47.
    Woese, C.R., O. Kandler, and M.L. Wheelis (1990): Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains archaea, bacteria and eukarya, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 87, pp. 4576–4579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Towner, K.J., and A. Cockayne (1993): Molecular Methods for Microbial Identification and Typing, Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Caetano-Anolles, G. (1996): Scanning of nucleic acids by in vitro amplification: new developments and applications, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 14, pp. 1668–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rappuoli, R. (2000): Pushing the limits of cellular microbiology: microarrays to study bacteria-host cell intimate contacts, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol. 97, pp. 13467–13469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hugenholtz, P., and N.R. Pace (1996): Identifying microbial diversity in the natural environment: a molecular phylogenetic approach, Trends in Biotechnology, Vol. 14, pp. 190–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Check, W. (2001): Nucleic acid-based tests move slowly into clinical labs, ASM News, Vol. 67, pp. 560–565.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Genomes, for a current overview of genome sequences see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/PMGifs/Genomes/micr.htmlGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jenks, P.J. (1998): Sequencing microbial genomes-what will it do for microbiology? Journal of Medical Microbiology, Vol. 47, pp. 375–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Fraser, C.M., and M.R. Dando (2001): Genomics and future biological weapons: the need for preventive action by the biomedical community, Nature Genetics, Vol. 29, pp. 253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Urwin, R., and M.C.J. Maiden (2003): Multi-locus sequence typing: a tool for global epidemiology, Trends in Microbiology, Vol. 11, pp. 479–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Enright, M.C., and B.G. Spratt (1999): Multilocus sequence typing, Trends in Microbiology, Vol. 7, pp. 482–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Maiden, M.C.J., J.A. Bygraves, E. Feil, G. Morelli, J.E. Russell, R. Urwin, Q. Zhang, J. Zhou, K. Zurth, D.A. Caugant, I.M. Feavers, M. Achtman, and B.G. Spratt (1998): Multilocus sequence typing: a portable approach to the identification of clones within populations of pathogenic microorganisms, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 95, pp. 3140–3145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Urwin, R. and M.C.J. Maiden (2003): op. cit. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Keim, P., L.B. Price, A.M. Klevytska, A.L. Smith, J.M. Schupp, R. Okinaka, P.J. Jackson, and M.E. Hugh-Jones (2000): Multiple-locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis reveals genetic relationships within Bacillus anthracis, Journal of Bacteriology, Vol. 182, pp. 928–2936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Read, T.D., S.L. Salzberg, M. Pop, M. Shumway, L. Umayam, L. Jiang, E. Holtzapple, J.D. Busch, K.L. Smith, J.M. Schupp, D. Solomon, P. Keim, and C.M. Fraser (2002): Comparative genome sequencing for discovery of novel polymorphisms in Bacillus anthracis, Science, Vol. 296, pp. 2028–2033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
  63. 63.
    Wheelis, M. (2002): Biotechnology and biochemical weapons. The Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 9,9 pp.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Rader, C. and C.F. Barbas III. (1997): Phage display of combinatorial antibody libraries, Current Opinion in Biotechnology, Vol. 8, pp. 503–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pandey, A. and M. Mann (2000): Proteomics to study genes and genomes, Nature, Vol. 405, pp. 837–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
  67. 67.
    Claydon, M.A., S.N. Davey, V. Edwards-Jones, and D.B. Gordon (1996): The rapid identification of intact microorganisms using mass spectrometry, Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 14, pp. 1584–1586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pandey, A. and M. Mann (2000), op. cit. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Dando, M. (2001): Genomics, bioregulators, cell receptors and potential biological weapons, Defense Analysis, Vol. 17, pp. 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wheelis, M. (2002), op. cit. Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Nixdorff, K. (2005): Assault on the immune system, Disarmament Forum, No. 1 (2005), pp. 25–35.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kelle, A. (2005): Science, Technology and the CBW control regimes, Disarmament Forum, No. 1 (2005), pp. 7–16.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Dando, M. (2002): Scientific and technological change and the future of the CWC: the problem of non-lethal weapons, Disarmament Forum, No. 4 (2002), pp. 33–45.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lewer, N. and N. Davison. (2005): Non-lethal technologies-an overview, Disarmament Forum, no. 1 (2005), pp. 37–51.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    See also the website of the Sunshine Project for documentation of the US nonlethal weapons programmes, at www.sunshine-project.orgGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Wax, P.E., C.E. Becker and S.C. Curry (2003): Unexpected gas casualties in Moscow: A medical toxicology perspective, Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 41, pp. 700–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Kelle, A. (2003): The CWC after its first review conference: is the glass half full or half empty? Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 71 (June/July), pp. 31–40.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kelle, A. (2005), op. cit. Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Straub, R.H., J. Westermann, J. Schlmerich and W. Falk (1998): Dialogue between the CNS and the immune system in lymphoid organs, Immunology Today, Vol.19, pp. 409–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Steinman, L. (2004): Elaborate interactions between the immune and nervous systems, Nature Immunology, Vol. 5, pp. 575–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
  82. 82.
    Licinio, J. and P. Frost, (2000): The neuroimmune-endocrine axis: pathophysiological implications for the central nervous system cytokines and hypothalamuspituitary-adrenal hormone dynamics, Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, Vol. 33, pp. 1141–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Inui, A. (2001): Cytokines and sickness behaviour: implications from knockout animal models, Trends in Immunology, Vol. 22, pp. 469–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Straub et al. (1998): op. cit. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Licinio, J. and P. Frost, (2000): op. cit. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Jackson, R. J., A.J. Ramsay, C. Christensen, S. Beaton, D.F.R. Hall and I.A. Ramshaw (2001): Expression of mouse interleukin-4 by a recombinant ectromelia virus suppresses cytolytic lymphocyte responses and overcomes genetic resistance to mousepox, Journal of Virology, Vol. 75, pp. 1205–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    USAMRIID (1987): Basic studies seeking generic medical countermeasures against agents of biological origin. In: Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1987, p. 19.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Shohet, S. and G. Wood (2002): Delivering biotherapeutics-technical opportunities and strategic trends, Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, Vol. 9, pp. 59–66.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    National Research Council of the National Academies (2003): Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism: Confronting the DualUse Dilemma. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Available at www.nap.edu.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Steinbruner, J.D. and E.D. Harris (2003): Controlling dangerous pathogens, Issues in Science and Technology, 19, 47–54. www.nap.edu/issues/19.3/steinbruner.htmGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Atlas, R.M. (2002): Bioterrorism: the ASM response, ASM News, Vol. 68, pp. 117–121.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Rappert, B. (2004): Towards a Life Science Code: Countering the Threats from Biological Weapons, Bradford Briefing Paper no. 13, September 2004. Available at: http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwcGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Bender, W., K. Platzer and K. Sinemus (1995): On the assessment of genetic technology: reaching ethical judgments in the light of modern technology, Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 1, pp. 21–32.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin · Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn Nixdorff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Microbiology and GeneticsDarmstadt University of TechnologyGermany

Personalised recommendations