Biological weapons lab on campus?
Neelam Soundarajan
The front page of the Lantern of July 17 had an article titled
"Biological agents to get home at OSU". If I read the story right,
very shortly there is going to be what sounds to me (from the
description) like a biological weapons lab on west campus just off of
Lane Avenue. (The story is available on-line at the Lantern web site:
http://www.thelantern.com/main.cfm?include=section§ion_id=140464
Some comments/questions:
1. Putting a lab that works with fairly serious biological agents in
the middle of a metro area sounds like a really bad idea to me.
2. Was there any discussion either in the Columbus City Council or
within Ohio State about the wisdom of setting up such a lab on campus?
(I often don't read the Metro section of the Dispatch carefully so I
may have missed it; if so, a pointer would be welcome.)
3. Aren't there treaties banning the development of biological warfare
agents? Is the US a signatory to any such treaties?
4. If the US continues development of chemical &/or biological
weapons, wouldn't other countries want to do the same? How does this
help?
Comments?
--Neelam.
Christopher A. Bohn
On 18 Jul 2003, Neelam Soundarajan wrote:
[...]
> Some comments/questions:
>
> 1. Putting a lab that works with fairly serious biological agents in
> the middle of a metro area sounds like a really bad idea to me.
>
> 2. Was there any discussion either in the Columbus City Council or
> within Ohio State about the wisdom of setting up such a lab on campus?
> (I often don't read the Metro section of the Dispatch carefully so I
> may have missed it; if so, a pointer would be welcome.)
A few searches on Google News and on dispatch.com hasn't turned up
anything -- which only proves that I couldn't find anything.
> 3. Aren't there treaties banning the development of biological warfare
> agents? Is the US a signatory to any such treaties?
Sort of, and yes. The Biological Weapons Convention
(http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/bwc/text/bwc.htm)
prohibits biological weapons (Article I):
\begin{quote}
(1) Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin
or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no
justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;
(2) Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or
toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.
\end{quote}
permits peaceful research (Article X):
\begin{quote}
(1) The States Parties to this Convention undertake to facilitate, and
have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of
equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the
use of bacteriological (biological) agents and toxins for peaceful
purposes. Parties to the Convention in a position to do so shall also
cooperate in contributing individually or together with other States or
international organizations to the further development and application of
scientific discoveries in the field of bacteriology (biology) for
prevention of disease, or for other peaceful purposes.
\end{quote}
From the news article, the lab will be used "for research involving
tuberculosis and other "Category A" agents that may be associated with
bioterrorism", and "'The types of research done here may lead to vaccines
for infectious diseases. Researchers will study how the disease process
works and how it can be prevented,' Smith said."
I take this to mean that the lab will be used for research into
prophylaxis and protection.
> 4. If the US continues development of chemical &/or biological
> weapons, wouldn't other countries want to do the same? How does this
> help?
As noted above, the article suggests the lab isn't for the development of
weapons but for countermeasures.
Take care,
cb
--
Christopher A. Bohn ____________|____________
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~bohn/ ' ** ** " (o) " ** ** '
"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
- Wernher von Braun
Neb Okla
"Neelam Soundarajan" <nee...@beta.cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:eo7k6f4...@beta.cis.ohio-state.edu...
>
> The front page of the Lantern of July 17 had an article titled
> "Biological agents to get home at OSU". If I read the story right,
> very shortly there is going to be what sounds to me (from the
> description) like a biological weapons lab on west campus just off of
> Lane Avenue. (The story is available on-line at the Lantern web site:
> http://www.thelantern.com/main.cfm?include=section§ion_id=140464
You read the Lantern? Shouldn't you be studying? ;)
> Some comments/questions:
>
> 1. Putting a lab that works with fairly serious biological agents in
> the middle of a metro area sounds like a really bad idea to me.
Fairly serious biological and chemical agents are in the middle of our metro
area every day. Don't let the city fool you with it's "Hazardous Cargo
Route" signs that lead you to believe that toxic chemicals must bypass
downtown via I-270. This simply routes them through the suburbs instead,
where people actually live and sleep - as opposed to our nearly vacant
downtown area.
Moreover, lots of chemicals that are explosive or deadly pass through our
city (safely) every day by rail. Some propose that we should simply route
the trains around (on what? There is no rail equivalent of I-270) - but
this is sheer stupidity. The city grew up around the railroad - which has
always transported bulk chemicals.
> 2. Was there any discussion either in the Columbus City Council or
> within Ohio State about the wisdom of setting up such a lab on campus?
> (I often don't read the Metro section of the Dispatch carefully so I
> may have missed it; if so, a pointer would be welcome.)
...so you don't read the Lantern or the Dispatch carefully? If you want
half the news, try broadcast television. ;)