Abstract
Bioterrorism is the phenomenon as old as civilization. The use of biological agents in war and subversive actions was recognized as an unhonourable weapon and a crime against humankind even in the ancient time. The development of bioweapons was always the expression of scientific and technological progress resulting in new military aspirations so during the Cold War period the world was even at the edge of the real biological warfare. After the sign of BWC the most powerful state actors prohibited the use of bioweapons but all of them continued the investigations with “biodefence purposes”. Today in the post 9/11 world bioterrorism is recognized as one of the leading security threat of the modern world that should be considered from the socio-political, economic, security, scientific, public-health, ecological and ethical points of view. The scientific progress, especially in the fields of molecular biology, genetic engineering, biotechnology and nanotechnology opened the questions about their possible misuse for improvement of biological weapons and making them more specific and effective (dual-use dilemma). In order to protect humankind and prevent possible misuse of biotechnology and bioterrorism in the world it is necessary to establish an international consensus in bioethical approaches. The ethics questions and considerations in bioterrorism and biodefense must cover multidisciplinary issues including the ethical principles of medicine, fundamental sciences, technology, law, politics, international relations, security, public health, environment, economy and war conducting, each with the unique ethical framework. But it also opens many controversies that will be discussed in the paper. The act of bioterrorism itself also change ethical approaches and make new frame of the ratio between personal, national and international security and open many other questions that should be analyzed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Block S (2001) The growing threat of biological weapons. Am Sci 89:28–38
Ristanovic E (2015) Bioterrorism:prevention and response. Odbrana Media Center, Belgrade
Samardzic S, Marinkovic T, Marinkovic D, Djuricic B, Ristanovic E, Simovic T, Lako B, Vukov B, Bozovic B, Gligic A (2008) Prevalence of antibodies to Rickettsiae in different regions of Serbia. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 8(2):219–224
Cekanac R, Mladenovic J, Ristanovic E, Lazic S (2010) Epidemiological characteristics of brucellosis in Serbia, 1980–2008. Croat Med J 51(4):337–344
Loike JD, Fischbach RL (2013) Ethical challenges in biodefense and bioterrorism. J Bioterror Biodef 12:2. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-2526.S12-002
Szalados JE (2012) Triaging the fittest: practical wisdom versus logical calculus? Crit Care Med 40:697–698
Faden RR, Karron RA (2012) The obligation to prevent the next dual-use controversy. Science 335:802–804
Barras V, Greub G (2014) History of biological warfare and bioterrorism. Clin Microbiol Infect 20(6):497–502
Grmek MD (1979) Ruses de guerre biologiques dans l’Antiquité. Revue des Études grecques 92(436):141–163
Eneh OC (2012) Biological weapons – agents for life and environmental de struction. Res J Environ Toxicol 6:65–87
Wheelis M (2002) Biological warfare at the 1346 siege of Caffa. Emerg Infect Dis 8(9):971–975
Ristanovic E, Gligic A, Atanasievska S, Protic-Djokic V, Jovanović D, Radunović M (2016) Smallpox as actual biothreat: lessons learned from its outbreak in ex-Yugoslavia in 1972. Ann Ist Super Sanita 52(4):587–597
Robertson AG, Robertson LJ (1995) From asps to allegations: biological warfare in history. Mil Med 160:369–373
Christopher GW, Cieslak TJ, Pavlin JA, Eitzen EM (1999) Biological warfare: a historical perspective. In: Lederberg J (ed) Biological weapons. Limiting the threat. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 17–35
Barenblatt D (2006) A plague upon humanity: the secret genocide of axis Japan’s germ warfare operation. Souvenir Press, London
Ristanovic E (2016) Health and security challenges of the 21st century: bioterrorism. ABC-časopis urgentne Med 16(1):8–19
Wheelis M, Dando M (eds) (2006) Deadly cultures: biological weapons since 1945. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). Available via http://www.opbw.org/convention/conv.html. Accessed 20 May 2017
Central Intelligence Agency Directorate of Intelligence (2003) The darker bioweapons future. Available via http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/bw1103.pdf. Accessed 21 May 2017
Ehni HJ (2008) Dual use and the ethical responsibility of scientists. Arch Immunol Ther Exp 56(3):147–152
Committee on Research Standards and Practices to Prevent the Destructive Application of Biotechnology (2004) Biotechnology research in an age of terrorism: confronting the “dual use” dilemma. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Berger KM, Wolinetz C, McCarron K, You E, William So K (2012) Bridging science and security for biological research: a dialogue between Universities and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Meeting report, Washington DC, February, 2012. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC
Radakovic S, Marjanovic M, Surbatovic M, Vukcevic G, Jovasevic-Stojanovic M, Ristanovic E (2014) Biological pollutants in indoor air. Vojnosanit Pregl 71(12):1147–1150
Selgelid MJ (2010) Ethics engagement of the dual use dilemma: progress and potential. In: education and ethics in the life sciences: strengthening the prohibition of biological weapons. Available via http://press-files.anu.edu.au/downloads/press/p51221/pdf/ch012.pdf
Selgelid MJ (2009) Governance of dual-use research: an ethical dilemma. Bull World Health Organ 87:720–723
Douglas T, Savulescu J (2010) Synthetic biology and the ethics of knowledge. J Med Ethics 36(11):687–693
Jackson RJ, Ramsay AJ, Christensen CD, Beaton S, Hall DF, Ramshaw IA (2001) Expression of mouse interleukin-4 by a recombinant ectromelia virus suppresses cytolytic lymphocyte responses and overcomes genetic resistance to mousepox. J Virol 75(3):1205–1210
Miller S, Selgelid MJ (2007) Ethical and philosophical consideration of the dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Sci Eng Ethics 13(4):523–580
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
Rosengard AM, Liu Y, Nie YZ, Jimenez R (2002) Variola virus immune evasion design: expression of a highly efficient inhibitor of human complement. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99(13):8808–8813
Keiser J (2005) Resurrected influenza virus yields secrets of deadly 1918 pandemic. Science 310(5745):28–29
Gibson DG, Glass JI, Lartigue C et al (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329(5987):52–56
Chen Y, Yin Z, Shao Z, Xie Q (2015) The Defence of artificial life by synthetic biology from ethical and social aspects. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 25(7):519–524
Edwards DA, Hanes J, Caponetti G et al (1997) Large porous particles for pulmonary drug delivery. Science 276(5320):1868–1872
Edwards DA (2002) Delivery of biological agents by aerosols. AICHE J 48(1):2–6
Cetto AM (ed) (2000) Science for the twenty-first century. A new commitment. Proceedings of the World Conference of Science, UNESCO, Paris, 2000. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001207/120706e.pdf
Hansen TB (2006) Academic and social responsibility of scientists. ISYP J Sci World Aff 2(2):71–92
United States Presidental Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2010) New directions: the ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technology. Washington. Available via http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10.pdf. Accessed at 22 May 2017
Jain AK (2010) Ethical issues in scientific publication. Indian J Orthop 44(3):235–237
WMA (2013) World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310(20):2191–2194
Bishop LJ, Nolen AL (2001) Animals in research and education: ethical issues. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 11(1):91–112
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF (2001) Principles of biomedical ethics, 5th edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Buchanan A, Kelley MC (2013) Biodefence and the production of knowledge: rethinking the problem. J Med Ethics 39:195–204
Kuhla F, Eriksson S, Evers K, Hoglund T (2008) Taking due care: moral obligations in dual use research. Bioethics 22(9):477–487
Selgedid MJ (2007) A tale of two studies: ethics, bioterrorism, and the censorship of science. Hast Cent Rep 37(3):35–43
National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (2007) Proposed frame work for the oversight of dual use life sciences research: strategies for minimizing the potential misuse of research information. Available at: http://oba.od.nih.gov/biosecurity/pdf/Framework%20for%20transmittal%200807_Sept07.pdf
van Aken J (2006) When risk outweighs benefit: dual-use research needs a scientific cally sound risk–benefit analysis and legally binding biosecurity measures. EMBO Rep 7(SI):S10–S13
National Research Council (2011) Challenges and opportunities for education about dual use issues in the life sciences. National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Pesik N, Keim ME, Iserson KV (2001) Terrorism and the ethics of emergency medical care. Ann Emerg Med 37(6):642–646
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ristanovic, E. (2018). Ethical Aspects of Bioterrorism and Biodefence. In: Radosavljevic, V., Banjari, I., Belojevic, G. (eds) Defence Against Bioterrorism. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series A: Chemistry and Biology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1263-5_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1263-5_19
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1262-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1263-5
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)