THE LIFE SCIENCES REVOLUTION AND THE BWC

Abstract

Reviews of science and technology are essential to maintain the strength of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). The article provides an overview of recent trends in the life sciences and concludes that the emerging post-proliferation context requires a departure from traditional models of biological weapons nonproliferation based on top-down government controls. The evolving circumstances beg instead for a governance system that brings together all stakeholders—science, industry, government, and the public—and broadens as well as deepens the basis for compliance with the safe and responsible conduct and utilization of life sciences research. The article proposes a governance approach to be adopted by the Seventh BWC Review Conference that includes strong stakeholder involvement and a regular and holistic mechanism for science and technology reviews in the future.

Keywords:

• Biological Weapons Convention
• science and technology
• life sciences research

Notes

1. First International Forum on Biosecurity, co-convened with National Academy of Sciences, Inter-Academy Panel, the Inter-Academy Medical Panel, and the International Council for Science, Lake Como, Italy, March 2005; Katherine Bowman, Jo L. Husbands, and Ben Rusek, “The 2nd International Forum on Biosecurity: Summary of an International Meeting,” Budapest, March 30–April 2, 2008, <www.nap.edu/catalog/12525.html>; “Trends in Science and Technology Relevant to the Biological Weapons Convention: An International Workshop,” workshop co-sponsored by the Inter-Academy Panel, the International Union of Microbiological Societies, the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the US National Academy of Sciences, Beijing, October 31–November 3, 2010, <dels.nas.edu/Past-Events/Trends-Science-Technology-Relevant/DELS-BLS-09-06>.

2. “Background Information Document on New Scientific and Technological Developments Relevant to the Convention,” BWC/CONF.VI/INF.4, Sixth Review Conference of the Parties to the BWC, Geneva, September 28, 2006, p. 2.

3. In her statement to the Meeting of States Parties in December 2010, US Ambassador Laura Kennedy recognized the need to consider first-order questions: “[I]t seems to us important that we first consider what needs such a mechanism would fulfill, and then design a mechanism that successfully addresses those needs.” Laura Kennedy, “US Statement at the Annual Meeting of States Parties of the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention,” BWC Meeting of States Parties, Geneva, December 6, 2010, <geneva.usmission.gov/2010/12/06/1206-bwc/>. For more, see Caitríona McLeish and James Revill, “Reviewing Science and Technology in the Context of the Biological Weapons Convention,” Thirty-first Workshop of the Pugwash Study Group on Implementation of the CBW Conventions, Geneva, December 4–5, 2010.

4. The term “governance” is used as shorthand to describe the changing nature and role of the state and the changing boundaries between state and civil society. See Mark Bevir, R.A.W. Rhodes, and Patrick Weller, “Traditions of Governance: Interpreting the Changing Role of the Public Sector,” Public Administration 81 (January 2003), pp. 1–17; Amanda Sloat, “Governance: Contested Perceptions of Civic Participation,” Scottish Affairs 39 (Spring 2002), pp. 17–28; and James N. Rosenau, Along the Domestics-Foreign Frontier (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

5. For example, see Isabel Rozas, “Drug Design, Combinatorial Chemistry and Drug Development,” in Alexander Kelle, ed., “The Changing Scientific and Technological Basis of the CBW Proliferation Problem: A Workshop Report,” Belfast, Queens University, February 2007, pp. 32–37, <www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/ST_Reports/ST_Report_No_7.pdf>.

6. House of Lords, Science and Technology Committee, “Genomic Medicine,” 2nd Report of Session 2008–2009, HL Paper 107–1, 2009.

7. Stephen Turner, “DNA Sequencing/Genomics: Toward Personalized Medicine: 3G DNA Sequencing,” BioOptics World (March 1, 2010), <www.optoiq.com/index/biophotonics/display/bow-article-display/1924814116/articles/biooptics-world/volume-3/issue-3/features/dna-sequencing_genomics.html>; Michael L. Metzger “Sequencing Technologies—the New Generations,” Nature Reviews—Genetics 11 (January 2010), pp. 31–46.

8. “Synthetic Biology: Discussion Meeting Summary,” Royal Society, London, August 2008.

9. Jeronimo Cello et al., “Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template,” Science 297 (August 9, 2002), pp. 1016–18; Terrence M. Tumpey et al., “Characterization of the Reconstructed 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic Virus,” Science 310 (October 7, 2005), pp. 77–80; Michelle M. Beckera et al., “Synthetic Recombinant Bat SARS-like Coronavirus Is Infectious in Cultured Cells and in Mice,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 105 (2008), pp. 19944–49; and Daniel G. Gibson et al., “Creation of a Bacterial Cell Controlled by a Chemically Synthesized Genome,” Science 329 (June 2, 2010), pp. 52–56.

10. Olaf Wolkenhauer et al., “SysBioMed Report: Advancing Systems Biology for Medical Applications,” IET Systems Biology 3 (May 2009), pp. 131–36.

11. See, for example, the Human Genome Project at <www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/home.shtml>. Biobricks are a “collection of genetic parts that can be mixed and matched to build synthetic biology devices and systems”; a database of available genetic parts can be found at the Registry of Standard Biological Parts, <partsregistry.org/Main_Page>. See also the European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite (EMBOSS), a “free Open Source software analysis package specially developed for the needs of the molecular biology (e.g. EMBnet) user community,” <emboss.sourceforge.net/>. A description of cloud computing can be found in “Cloud Computing Brings Cost of Protein Research Down to Earth,” Science Daily, April 13, 2009, <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090410100940.htm>.

12. Steve Rose, “Future Directions in Neuroscience: A Twenty Year Time Scale,” briefing presented at “Unfolding the Mind: Prospects and Perils in Neuroscience,” Navigator Network Symposium, Auckland, New Zealand, March 9, 2007.

13. Steve Rose, “Future Directions in Neuroscience: A Twenty Year Time Scale,” briefing presented at “Unfolding the Mind: Prospects and Perils in Neuroscience,” Navigator Network Symposium, Auckland, New Zealand, March 9, 2007, p. 7.

14. Kathryn Nixdorff, “Advances in Targeted Delivery Technology,” Report of the Research Group on the Life Science Revolution and Future Biochemical Arms Control, August 2008.

15. See N. Renee Labiris and Myrna B. Dolovich, “Pulmonary Drug Delivery, Part II: The Role of Inhalant Delivery Devices and Drug Formulations in Therapeutic Effectiveness of Aerosolized Medications,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 56 (2003), pp. 600–612.

16. For more, see Malcolm Dando, The New Biological Weapons: Threat, Proliferation, and Control (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2001), p. 109.

17. For an overview, see S. Haüssermann, G. Scheuch, and R. Siekmeier, “Targeting Drugs to the Lungs—The Example of Insulin,” in J.C.M. Marijnissen and Leon Gradon, eds., Nanoparticles in Medicine and Environment (New York: Springer, 2010), pp. 227–49.

18. Labiris and Dolovich, “Pulmonary Drug Delivery.”

19. National Research Council, Trends in Science and Technology Relevant to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011), pp. 19–20.

20. National Research Council, Trends in Science and Technology Relevant to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011)., pp. 21–22.

21. National Research Council, Trends in Science and Technology Relevant to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2011), pp. 22–23.

22. “Knowledge Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century,” Royal Society (RS), London, RS Policy Document 03/11, March 2011, p.14, <royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/Influencing_Policy/Reports/2011-03-28-Knowledge-networks-nations.pdf>.

23. “Knowledge Networks and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century,” Royal Society (RS), London, RS Policy Document 03/11, March 2011, p. 5.

24. Committee on Advances in Technology and the Prevention of Their Application to Next Generation Biowarfare Threats, National Research Council, Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006).

25. Rose, “Future Directions in Neuroscience,” p. 3.

26. National Research Council, Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences, p. 5.

27. National Research Council, Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences, p. 37.

28. Slavko Bokan, “The Toxicology of Bioregulators as Potential Agents of Bioterrorism,” Arhiv za Higijenu Rada I Toksikologiju [Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology] 56 (June 2005), pp. 205–11.

29. British Medical Association, Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity (London: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1999), pp. 53–67.

30. For more on the social shaping of technology, see Paul Nightingale, “Technological Capabilities, Invisible Infrastructure and the Un-social Construction of Predictability: The Overlooked Fixed Costs of Useful Research,” Research Policy 33 (2004), pp. 1259–84.

31. Lotta Harbom and Peter Wallensteen, “Appendix 2A: Patterns of Major Armed Conflicts, 2000–2009,” in SIPRI Yearbook 2010 (Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2010), pp. 61.

32. Julian Perry Robinson, “Difficulties Facing the Chemical Weapons Convention,” International Affairs 84 (March 2008), p. 226.

33. Paul Nightingale and Caitríona McLeish, “Governments and Governance of Bioscience as a ‘New Security Challenge,’” in Catherine Lyall, Theo Papaioannou, and James Smith, eds., The Limits to Governance: The Challenge of Policy-Making in the New Life Sciences (London: Ashgate, 2009), pp. 133–52.

34. Robinson, “Difficulties Facing the Chemical Weapons Convention,” p. 226.

35. James N. Rosenau, Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

36. Caitríona McLeish, “From Disarmament to Technology Governance: Functional Change in the Chemical Weapons Convention,” in Ralf Trapp, ed., OPCW Academic Forum Conference Proceedings (The Hague: Netherlands Institute of International Relations, 2008), pp. 285–300.

37. Jan Kooiman, ed., Modern Governance (London: Sage, 1993), p. 4.

38. The Final Declaration of the Fourth BWC Review Conference states: “The Conference, conscious of apprehensions arising from relevant scientific and technological developments, inter alia, in the fields of microbiology, biotechnology, molecular biology, genetic engineering, and any applications resulting from genome studies, and the possibilities of their use for purposes inconsistent with the objectives and the provisions of the Convention, reaffirms that the undertaking given by the States Parties in Article I applies to all such developments.” “Report of the Preparatory Committee for the Fourth 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,” BWC/CONF.IV/1, Fourth Review Conference of the BWC, Geneva, November 1, 1996.

39. “Final Document,” BWC/CONF.VI/6, Sixth Review Conference of the BWC, Geneva, November 20–December 8, 2006, p. 9.

40. “Report of the Scientific Advisory Board on Developments in Science and Technology,” RC-2/DG.1, Second Review Conference of the CWC, The Hague, February 28, 2008.

41. Rasko's collaborators hailed from the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, the FBI, the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, the University of Maryland in College Park, the Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, the Translational Genomics Research Institute Flagstaff, and the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. David A. Rasko et al., “Bacillus Anthracis Comparative Genome Analysis in Support of the Amerithrax Investigation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 108 (March 22, 2011), pp. 5027–32.

42. Rasko's collaborators hailed from the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, the FBI, the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, the University of Maryland in College Park, the Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, the Translational Genomics Research Institute Flagstaff, and the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore. David A. Rasko et al., “Bacillus Anthracis Comparative Genome Analysis in Support of the Amerithrax Investigation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 108 (March 22, 2011), pp. 5027–32.

43. Caitríona McLeish, “Reviewing Scientific and Technological Advances within the Biological Weapons Convention: The First 30 Years,” paper presented at International Studies Association Annual Convention, Montreal, Canada, March 16–19, 2011.

44. Implementation Support Unit (ISU), “Background Information on Scientific and Technological Developments that May be Relevant to the Convention,” BWC/MSP/2008/INF.1, Meeting of BWC States Parties, November 28, 2008; ISU, “Background Information on Scientific and Technological Developments that May be Relevant to the Convention,” BWC/MSP/2009/INF.1, Meeting of BWC States Parties, December 2, 2009; and ISU, “Background Information on Scientific and Technological Developments that May Be Relevant to the Convention: Report on an International Workshop in Beijing,” BWC/MSP/2010/INF.1, Meeting of BWC States Parties, December 6, 2010.

45. US Government, “Synthetic Biology: A Transforming Technology,” BWC/MSP/2008/MX/WP.4, Meeting of BWC States Parties, July 30, 2008; UK Government, “Oversight of Emerging Technologies: Examples of UK Approaches to Responsible Development of Science,” BWC/MSP/2008/MX/WP.11, Meeting of BWC States Parties, August 11, 2008.

46. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, 1993, Article VII (21)(h).

47. Catherine Smallwood, “Truth, Science and Chemical Weapons: Expert Advice and the Impact of Technical Change on the Chemical Weapons Convention,” doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex, 2009, p. 196.

48. Catherine Smallwood, “Truth, Science and Chemical Weapons: Expert Advice and the Impact of Technical Change on the Chemical Weapons Convention,” doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex, 2009, p. 201.

49. Mahdi Balali-Mood, Pieter S. Steyn, Leiv K. Sydnes, and Ralf Trapp, “Impact of Scientific Developments on the Chemical Weapons Convention (IUPAC Technical Report),” Pure and Applied Chemistry 80 (2008), pp. 175–200.

50. On conversations about biosecurity, see Bowman, Husbands, and Rusek, The 2nd International Forum on Biosecurity; on the international workshops, see National Academies, “Trends in Science and Technology Relevant to the Biological Weapons Convention.”

51. Editorial, “Statement on the Consideration of Biodefence and Biosecurity,” Nature 421 (February 20, 2003), p. 771.

52. Simon Whitby and Malcolm Dando, “Effective Implementation of the BTWC: The Key Role of Awareness Raising and Education,” Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention Review Conference Paper No. 26, University of Bradford, November 2010.

53. See McLeish, “From Disarmament to Technology Governance,” pp. 285–300.

54. United Kingdom, “Preparatory Committee for the [First] Review Conference: Working Paper on Background Documentation,” BWC/CONF.I/PC.3, Preparatory Committee for the First Review Conference, Geneva, July 10, 1979. See also, James Revill et al., “Proposals for Changing the S&T Reviews,” Harvard Sussex Program, S&T Reviews, April 2011, <hsp.sussex.ac.uk/sandtreviews>.

55. In this article, the word “paradigm” is used as per the definition given by philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn, namely, “an organizing principle which can govern perception itself.” Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 112.