Biological Agents: Threat and Response

  • James J. ValdesEmail author
  • Erica R. Valdes
Living reference work entry


The vast majority of microbial life is beneficial to human existence, performing functions as diverse as fixing nitrogen for agriculture, degrading toxic materials for bioremediation, and producing natural products which are difficult or impossible to synthesize chemically. In human physiology, bacteria are required for digestion, produce micronutrients in the gut, help to ward off dangerous pathogens, and may be involved in the immune response and healthy cognitive function. In fact, mitochondria, the power-producing organelle in eukaryotic cells, has an independent genome which resembles that of bacteria and is probably an endosymbiotic organelle. Many bacteria are pathogenic to humans and animals via a variety of mechanisms, including the production of toxic chemicals. Viruses, on the other hand, are not technically alive, having no metabolic machinery of their own, and are supramolecular structures which use the host cell’s genome to replicate. Both bacteria and viruses have a long history of causing human disease, either by natural outbreaks or by intentional use by humans. As biological warfare or bioterrorism agents, they have profoundly different attributes from chemical, radiological, nuclear, or kinetic weapons in that their effects are usually delayed, which makes response and attribution difficult – in some cases they are contagious and can spread rapidly through aerosol or physical contact transmission, and there are no medical treatments for many pathogens and toxins. The potential of disease caused by both the deliberate dissemination of biological pathogens and the emergence of new diseases should be viewed as a public health issue to which the tools of risk management are brought to bear. While nature produces, on average, a new major disease every year, advances in synthetic engineering biology now raise the specter of designing de novo new threats for which there are no countermeasures. The possibility of these “biotechnological” agents will require a strategic approach to counter the threat.



Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Case Number 18–0266.

The author’s affiliation with The MITRE Corporation is provided for identification purposes only and is not intended to convey or imply MITRE’s concurrence with, or support for, the positions, opinions, or viewpoints expressed by the author.

The opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and are not to be interpreted as representing the official views or policies, either expressed or implied, of the Department of Defense.


  1. Alvarez ML, Cardineau GA (2010) Prevention of bubonic and pneumonic plague using plant-derived vaccines. Biotechnol Adv 28(1):184–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arima Y, Shimada T (2015) Epidemiological situation of Ebola virus disease in West Africa. Uirusu 65(1):47–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balenghien T, Cardinale E et al (2013) Towards a better understanding of Rift Valley fever epidemiology in the south-west of the Indian Ocean. Vet Res 44:78. Scholar
  4. Benner SA (1988) Redesigning the molecules of life. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 115–175Google Scholar
  5. Bush GW (2003) Homeland security presidential directive 5 management of domestic incidents. White House Office of the Press Secretary, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Clinton WJ (1995) Presidential decision directive 39 U.S. Policy on CounterterrorismGoogle Scholar
  7. Clinton, WJ (1998) Presidential decision directive 62 protection against unconventional threats to the homeland and Americans overseasGoogle Scholar
  8. Danzig RJ (2009) A policymaker’s guide to bioterrorism and what to do about it. National Defense University Press, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DiEuliis D, Berger K, Gronvall G (2017) Biosecurity implications for the synthesis of horsepox, an orthopoxvirus. Health Secur 15:629. Scholar
  10. Elrazak MA (1991) Brucella optic neuritis. Arch Internal Med 151:776–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forrester NL et al (2017) Evolution and spread of Venezuelan equine encephalitis complex alphavirus in the Americas. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 11(8):e0005693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gal Y, Mazor O et al (2017) Treatments for pulmonary ricin intoxication: current aspects and future prospects. Toxins (Basel) 9. Scholar
  13. Gibbs WW (2004) Synthetic life. Sci Am 290:74–81Google Scholar
  14. Gibson DG et al (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science 329(5987):52–56ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hooshangi S, Bentley WE (2011) LsrR quorum sensing “switch” is revealed by a bottom-up approach. PLoS Comp Biol 7(9):e1002172. Scholar
  16. Hornick RB, Eigelsbach HT (1966) Aerogenic immunization of man with live tularemia vaccine. Bacteriology Rev 30:532–538Google Scholar
  17. Hwang D, Lee IY et al (2009) A systems approach to prion disease. Mol Sys Biol 5:252. Scholar
  18. Inglesby TV, Dennis TV et al (2000) Plague as a biological weapon: medical and public health management. JAMA 281:1735–1745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jacobs BL, Landland JO et al (2009) Vaccinia virus vaccines: past, present, future. Antivir Res 84(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahn AS, Tshio FK et al (1999) The re-emergence of Ebola hemorrhagic fever: democratic Republic of the Congo 1995. J Infect Dis 179(1):S76–S86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koneman EW, Allen SD et al (1997) Color atlas and textbook of diagnostic microbiology, 5th edn. Lippincott, Estados UnidosGoogle Scholar
  22. Koo B, Jin CE et al (2017) A rapid bio-optical sensor for diagnosing Q fever in clinical specimens. J Biophotonics 11:e201700167. Scholar
  23. Laforce FM (1994) Anthrax. Clin Infect Dis 19(6):1009–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lake GC, Francis E (1922) Six cases of tularemia occurring in laboratory workers. Public Health Rep 37:392–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Linthicum KJ, Britch SC, Anyamba A (2016) Rift Valley fever: an emerging mosquito-borne disease. Annu Rev Entomol 61:395–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lundberg L, Carey B, Kehn-Hall K (2017) Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus capsid: the clever caper. Viruses 9(10):279. Scholar
  27. Lushniak BD (2014) Antibiotic resistance: a public health crisis. Public Health Rep 129(4):314–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maksyutov RA, Yakubitskyi SN et al (2017) Comparing new-generation candidate vaccines against human orthopoxvirus infections. Acta Nat 9(2):88–93Google Scholar
  29. Mandani N, Giraud P et al (2017) First draft genome sequences of three strains of Francisella tularensis subsp. holarctica isolated from hares and a tick in France. Genome Announc 5(45):e-00993-17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mee C (1990) How a mysterious disease laid low Europe’s masses. Smithsonian 20:66–79Google Scholar
  31. Mobley JA (1995) Biological warfare in the twentieth century: lessons from the past, challenges for the future. Mil Med 160:547–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ochman H, Raghavan R (2009) Excavating the functional landscape of bacterial cells. Science 326(5957):1200–1201. Scholar
  33. Ohl CA, Luther VP (2011) Antimicrobial stewardship for inpatient facilities. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 6:S4–S15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paternina LE, Rodas JD (2018) Sampling design and mosquito trapping for surveillance of arboviral activity. Methods Molec Biol 1604:89–100. Scholar
  35. Regis E (1999) The biology of doom: America’s secret germ warfare project. Holt & Co., New York ISBN 0805057641Google Scholar
  36. Roest HI, Bossers A et al (2013) Clinical microbiology of Coxiella burnetii and relevant aspects for the diagnosis and control of the zoonotic disease Q fever. Vet Q 33(3):148–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roth TM, Foley J, Wright S (2017) Abiotic and biotic contributors to support inter-epidemic Francisella tularensis in an agricultural peri-urban environment. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis 17(11):764–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Srinivasan A, Krause CN, DeShazer D (2001) Glanders in a military research microbiologist. NEJM 345:256–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tao P, Mahalingam M et al (2017) A bivalent anthrax-plague vaccine that can protect against two Tier-1 bioterror pathogens, Bacillus anthracis and Yersinia pestis. Front Immunol 8:687. Scholar
  40. Van Roeden SE, Bleeker-Rovers CP et al (2017) Treatment of chronic Q fever: clinical efficacy and toxicity of antibiotic regimens. Clin Infect Dis. Scholar
  41. Von Bredow J, Myers M et al. (1999) Agroterrorism: Agricultural infrastructure vulnerability. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 894:168–180ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Weaver, SC and Reisen, WK (2010) Present and future arboviral threats. Antiviral Research, 85(2):328–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weir E (2000) Anthrax: Of bison and bioterrorism. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 163(5):607Google Scholar
  44. Whitfield SJC, Griffiths GD et al. (2017) Production, characterization and testing of an ovine antitoxin against ricin; potency and mechanisms of action. Toxins. 9(10):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

General References

  1. Army Field Manual (FM 3-5) NBC DecontaminationGoogle Scholar
  2. Army Field Manual (FM 4-02.7) Health services support in an NBC environmentGoogle Scholar
  3. Army Field Manual (FM 8-284) Treatment of biological warfare casualtiesGoogle Scholar
  4. U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Medical management of biological casualties handbook, 7th ednGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Defense Technology DivisionMITRE CorporationAberdeenUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological CenterForensic Analytical CenterAberdeen Proving GroundUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Augustus Way Fountain III

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations