Biological Weapons Threats and Civil Defense in the United States

This paper discusses the threats against biological warfare and the measures undertaken by the civil defense within the United States to combat the disastrous impact of biological warfare and terrorism on humanity.

Running head: HEALTHCARE ASSIGNMENT
HEALTHCARE ASSIGNMENT
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1HEALTHCARE ASSIGNMENT
Title: Biological weapons threats and civil defense in the United States
Abstract:
Biological weapons are also referred to as germ weapon that lead to an epidemic
outbreak. The weapons typically involve biological disease causing agents such as bacteria,
viruses or toxins that result in the mass killing of humans and other living beings (Berger et al.
2016). The disastrous impact of biological warfare on humanity can be traced back to the time of
the second world war when Japan used germ weapon to attack China (Kortepeter and Parker
1999). Despite signing the international treaties against biological warfare in the years 1925 and
1972, nations worldwide are yet conducting research to formulate large-scale biological weapon
(Charlet 2018). This paper intends to discuss the threats against biological warfare and the
measures undertaken by the civil defense within the United States to combat the disastrous
impact of biological warfare and terrorism on humanity.
Introduction:
The advancement of research in the field of medicine has helped in identifying the
properties of the causative agents. However, when the properties are exploited and used as
potential biological weapon, there arises a problem. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention identified biological weapons into subtypes, Type A, which includes Anthrax,
Botulism, Plague,Small Pox, Tularemia and Viral haemorrhagic fevers and Type B includes,
Brucellosis, Epsilon toxin, Glanders, Melioidosis, Q-fever, Ricin toxin, Staphylococcal
enterotoxin B, Typhus fever, viral encephalitis, water safety and food safety threats
(Frischknecht 2003). The National Biodefense Strategy, an effort by the U.S Army Medical Unit,

2HEALTHCARE ASSIGNMENT
which was active during the time period of 1943-1969 was majorly concerned with the
production and the development of germ weapon (Mackby 2018). However, the U.S Army
Medical Research Institute abolished the program for the purpose of serving humanity. The
present ongoing research focuses on developing defensive bio-agents to combat against
bioterrorism.
Background:
The disastrous consequence of the biological warfare was felt around 1990s during the
time of Korean war (Rossodivita et al. 2019). Also, after the 2001 anthrax breakout the United
States stringently focused on developing research programs in order to monitor and prevent
infectious breakouts for improving public health outcomes (Frischknecht 2003; Stuart and
Wilkening 2005). At present, the United States has successfully developed bio-agents against
viral agents, botulism and diseases such as anthrax, Rift valley fever and Eastern and Western
equine encephalitis through military research (Siegrist and Graham 1999).

3HEALTHCARE ASSIGNMENT
Method:
In order to evaluate the current scenario of biological warfare within the context of
United States, an exhaustive systematic review was conducted to retrieve available research
papers on biological warfare. A thorough search was conducted on the electronic databases that
included Google Scholar and CINAHL with relevant key-terms. The key words used for finding
relevamt researches covered all the key concept of the research question. Some of the main key
words used in the selection of the studies were- ‘Biological weapons”, “bioterrorism”,
“bioethics” , “Civil defense in America and bioterrorism”. It is necessary to formulate a proper
inclusion and exclusion criteria in order to clarify the vision of the topic. English papers were
selected between the years of publication 2012-2019. Peer reviewed journal articles were
selected for the evaluation of reh current scenario.
Results:
The paper by Berger et al (2016) has mentioned about how the toxins are used in the
potential warfare. The review had focused on the two categories of toxin A and B recognized by
the center for the Disease control and Prevention: staphylococcal enterotoxin B, Botulinum
neurotoxin and Clostridium perfringens epsilon toxin. The main challenge in the toxin exposure
is the early detection of the clusters of morbidity after a relatively short exposure period. The
toxins mainly work by blocking the release of the acetyl choline from the presynaptic nerve
ending causing paralysis and weaknesses of the corresponding muscles. The paper gives an
account of how the toxins had been used in the past as a bio-weapon.
Charlet (2018) have stated that, recent researches in the gene editing are creating
potential for the global good such as fixing the genetic mutations, creation of the diseases

4HEALTHCARE ASSIGNMENT
resistant crops and treating cancer. But the gene editing tools can also be misused to a much
greater extent. For example between the years 1942 and 1969, United States had developed a
highly advanced biological weapon that can cause a high level of mortality (Frischknecht 2003).
However, the gene editing techniques like CRISPR can make these biological weapon more
lethal.
The summarized results mentioned that the US defense program against germ weapon
has successfully developed bio-agents not only against human-borne infections but also against
domestic animals such as Rift valley fever and Venezuelan equine encephalitis (Lim et al. 2005;
Smith 2014). Also, the USAMRIID provides substantial support to the federal and local agencies
along with international bodies for the improvement of public health. Examples include, aid
offered during Ebola infection breakout within apes imported from Reston to Virginia in the year
1990 and aid offered to WHO and CDC during Ebola outbreak within Zaire in the year 1995
(Cieslak et al. 2003).Soon after the 9/11 attack in the United States, anthrax laced letters were
found in the mailboxes of several media boxes. However, this and many such attack served as a
wakeup call for the civil defense system for America.
Conclusion and Recommendation:
Recent breakthrough in molecular biology techniques such as the invention of the
CRISPR method poses a significant threat to the otherwise strong civil defense department of the
United States (Frischknecht 2003).
Recommendations for combating would include the promotion of invasive research in the
field of molecular biology and genetic engineering. Furthermore, it is also necessary to discuss
the legal and the administrative strategies that the state the health officers should consider while

5HEALTHCARE ASSIGNMENT
preparing themselves for a bioterrorist attack. Two predictable factors should dictate the manner
in which the local and the state government should respond to the bioterrorist attack. The attack
needs to be treated as an epidemic, but also as an emergency and a crime. For the
accomplishment of the public health duties, there has to be sufficient number of employees and
the providers in the local and the state health agencies (Cieslak et al., 2018). If the number of the
exposed persons were large and contagious, then initiatives for the vaccination can be taken. The
disease reporting and the surveillance system should be prompt. On a concluding note, it can be
said that accurate and substantive information given to the public by credible health experts can
help to dispel the fear of the public and encourage their cooperation and participation in
organizing an important community response.

6HEALTHCARE ASSIGNMENT
References:
Berger, T., Eisenkraft, A., Bar-Haim, E., Kassirer, M., Aran, A.A. and Fogel, I., 2016. Toxins as
biological weapons for terror—characteristics, challenges and medical countermeasures: a mini-
review. Disaster and military medicine, 2(1), p.7.
Charlet, K. 2018. The New Killer Pathogens: Countering the Coming Bioweapons
Threat. Foreign Affairs, 97, 178.
Cieslak, T., Kortepeter, M., Wojtyk, R., Jansen, H., Reyes, R. and Smith, J. 2018. Beyond the
dirty dozen: a proposed methodology for assessing future bioweapon threats. Military
Medicine, 183(1-2), e59–e65.
Frischknecht, F. 2003. The history of biological warfare: Human experimentation, modern
nightmares and lone madmen in the twentieth century. EMBO reports, 4(6S), pp.S47-S52.
Kortepeter, M.G. and Parker, G.W., 1999. Potential biological weapons threats. Emerging
infectious diseases, 5(4), p.523.
Lim, D. V., Simpson, J. M., Kearns, E. A. and Kramer, M. F. 2005. Current and developing
technologies for monitoring agents of bioterrorism and biowarfare. Clinical microbiology
reviews, 18(4), 583-607.
Mackby, J. 2018. Experts Debate Biological Weapons Challenges. Arms Control Today, 48(7),
35-36.
Rossodivita, A., Visconti, A., Saporito, T., and Rizzardini, G. 2019. Bioterrorism: toxins as
potential biological weapons-an emerging global health threat. International Journal of
Infectious Diseases, 79, 55.

7HEALTHCARE ASSIGNMENT
Siegrist, D., and Graham, J. 1999. Countering biological terrorism in the U.S. : an
understanding of issues and status. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y: Oceana Publications.p.80-82
Smith, F. 2014. American Biodefense: How Dangerous Ideas about Biological Weapons Shape
National Security. Cornell University Press.
Stuart, A.L. and Wilkening, D.A. 2005. Degradation of biological weapons agents in the
environment: implications for terrorism response. Environmental science & technology, 39 8,
2736-43.