Scientific Codes of Conduct Inevitable, Experts Say

By Chris Schneidmiller
Global Security Newswire

ST. LOUIS, Mo. — Codes of conduct that scientists would follow to prevent their research from laying the groundwork for acts of bioterrorism are necessary and ultimately inevitable, experts said last week (see GSN, Sept. 5, 2003).

Professional organizations such as the American Society for Microbiology have already developed ethics principles for their members, while entities in the United States and abroad are preparing guidelines that could be disseminated more broadly. The nations of the Biological Weapons Convention are set to consider the matter at their review conference later this year in Geneva.

However, the issue is by no means settled. Scientists continue to debate the value of a code and governments are considering whether they want an international protocol or if it should be handled individually by nations.

Beyond that is making sure the guidelines would be adhered to where they matter — in the laboratory.

“I think there are going to be codes. I’m not sure that the scientists are going to be aware of them,” Gigi Kwik Gronvall, an associate with the University of Pittsburgh Center for Biosecurity, said Saturday during the 2006 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Research on dangerous pathogens that once might not have faced significant scrutiny now raises red flags for the scientific community and the media in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and the subsequent anthrax mailings. Much attention has been paid in recent years to several projects, including a 2002 paper on recreating the polio virus and a 2005 article on contaminating milk with botulinum.

The scientific community has responded with several proposals to concerns that its work could assist state or terrorist biological weapons efforts. A U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee in 2003 recommended a nationwide screening system for potentially sensitive biological research (see GSN. Oct. 8, 2003). Editors at major scientific journals that year also called for restraint in publishing articles that might aid would-be bioterrorists (see GSN, Feb. 19, 2003).

Codes of conduct are needed “to prevent the life sciences from becoming the death sciences through bioterrorism or biowarfare,” said Ronald Atlas, co-director of the Center for Deterrence of Biowarfare and Bioterrorism at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

“We need to embrace the development of codes. What we really need to do is create a culture of responsibility,” Atlas said Saturday during a panel discussion at the conference.

Atlas and Margaret Somerville, a professor of law and medicine at McGill University in Montreal, developed a prototype code that calls on scientists to “work to ensure that their discoveries and knowledge first do no harm.” That means complying with the Biological Weapons Convention and avoiding any research that is clearly intended or is highly likely to facilitate use of biological weapons.

The nine-point plan also calls for safety and ethics reviews of research and encourages scientists to call public attention to research that could be related to biological weapons.

Consideration of codes is occurring within governments and organizations around the world, panel speakers said. The International Red Cross in 2004 issued its own set of principles for the life sciences (see GSN, Nov. 12, 2004). The InterAcademy Panel on International Issues last year issued a statement of principles — endorsed by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and dozens of other state scientific academies — that should be considered when preparing ethics policies.

“I would imagine all of these groups are hoping to influence the broader life sciences community,” panel speaker Mark Nance, a member of the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, said in an interview.

The board was established in 2004 to prepare strategies for oversight of federally funded or operated dual-use research that could be used against the country. One of its five working groups is developing a code of conduct that could be taken up by U.S. research institutions, said Nance, a senior counsel at GE Healthcare Biosciences.

The group is seeking input from life science professionals, and next month plans to conduct focus groups to obtain feedback on concepts that could be used in a code.

Group members have not published a schedule for completion of their work — which will rely on the results of another group developing a definition of dual-use research — and Nance said it was premature to discuss how the document might be implemented. 

He said the group is monitoring similar international and domestic efforts for ideas that could strengthen its work.

In December, Biological Weapons Convention states approved a report encouraging scientists to develop ethics codes (see GSN, Dec. 12, 2005). An earlier version of the text had called on governments to promote such guidelines.

Atlas said he does not expect the nations at the treaty review conference beginning in November to approve an actual code of conduct that BWC members could use.   China and other nations prefer to see the matter handled by each nation. More likely is that the members would approve a statement of support for codes, he said.

Critics say codes would restrict scientists’ work while doing little to prevent an actual act of bioterrorism. They argue that their work is inherently neutral, while “bad guys are going to do bad things [and] you can’t stop them,” Atlas said.

Panel members acknowledged that codes would not prevent terrorists from carrying out biological attacks, but said they could raise awareness on sound practices to keep their research from supporting such an act.

They stressed that codes should allow for the greatest possible freedom for research and publication. Actual restrictions should only come into play if there is a “clear and imminent danger” that a project could promote bioterrorism, Atlas said.

Any code must avoid instituting a “top-down” framework, meaning allowing the government to decide what work can or cannot be done, Gronvall said. It is impossible to clearly define what constitutes dangerous research, and the biosciences are too widespread globally, diverse and fragmented to be controlled.

It is up to the research institutions and the scientists themselves to ensure they followed any codes, panel speakers said. Scientists are best positioned to see and address a potential risk, Gronvall said.

That strategy entails additional responsibility. Gronvall said scientists must be aware that work that does not appear related to weaponizable pathogens — for example, an aerosolized measles vaccine — could aid weapons programs. Professors must ensure their students are familiar with the Biological Weapons Convention and the obligations established by a code.

Failure to recognize the power of their work could have serious repercussions for science, Gronvall said. An act of terrorism that is linked to a study could lead to governmental restrictions on research that could undermine efforts to stem a health crisis such as SARS, she said.

Ethical violations could also hurt the scientists themselves. The American Society for Microbiology code details a review process that could lead to expulsion of members found to have violated the policy. Scientists seen as violating codes could find it difficult to work within the research community, Gronvall said.

She said in an interview that codes should be one part of an awareness campaign that includes discussion and development of more concrete biosafety policies.

Biosecurity can be taught in scientific training alongside biosafety rules such as wearing gloves and goggles, Gretchen Lorenzi, an analyst with the FBI WMD Countermeasures Unit, said during the panel discussion. 

When collaborating or sharing research, asking a few questions will help scientists “sleep at night easily,” Lorenzi said. Do you know where the information is going? Has the recipient been published in a related field? Was the person referred by someone known to you?

“The most valuable contribution to biosecurity is actually awareness,” Lorenzi said.

Back to top

Democrats Move to Expand Potential Liability of Makers of Bioterrorism Vaccines, Countermeasures

U.S. Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) could block efforts by Senate Democrats to pass legislation that would expand the liability of companies that produce bioterrorism countermeasures and vaccines, the Biodefense Funding Report reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 15).

Senators Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) last week introduced a bill to repeal liability protections included in the fiscal 2006 defense spending bill. The Responsible Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act would create a compensation pool for people injured by a vaccine or drug used against an act of bioterrorism or a natural outbreak, as well as allow that person to sue the manufacturer.

A spokesman for Enzi, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said the bill troubles the senator. Enzi’s committee has jurisdiction over the bill, according to the Funding Report.

Spokesman Craig Orfield said that while Enzi has not taken a formal position on the legislation, he would be “very cautious in approaching any bill or proposal that might create complications for the bird flu liability that's been put in place at this time.” Orfield added that there is a “very careful balance that has been put in place and it would be very difficult to pass anything that might undo that or place any stress on [the agreement] for the time being.”

A source from within the pharmaceutical industry said drug companies would not produce countermeasures needed in case of a biological attack if the liability shield was removed.

Kennedy, however, said his bill corrects “a grievous mistake.” He argued that liability protections would make people less likely to use the countermeasures and that first responders would be reluctant to take them as they would have no recourse if they experienced an adverse reaction.

Companies under the current law could be sued only if found to have committed willful misconduct (Biodefense Funding Report, Feb. 21).

Back to top

Tests Show Powder Found at NATO Base Not Anthrax

A white powder feared to be anthrax found at a NATO base in Norway last week has turned out to be harmless, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 15).

The powder, found Feb. 14 in a letter at NATO’s Joint Warfare Center, caused a biological agent alert and led to medical treatment for the employee who opened the letter. 

NATO spokesman Juergen Eise said subsequent police tests on the substance determined that it posed no danger.

“It was completely harmless,” he said, adding that the police would issue a report with information on what the powder was in the future (Associated Press/Houston Chronicle, Feb. 21).

Back to top

U.K. Installs Radiation Detectors at Entry Points

The United Kingdom has begun installing systems that can detect nuclear weapons or radiological “dirty bombs” at airports, rail stations and ports, the London Independent reported today (see GSN, Feb. 9).

Scotland Yard also plans to test individuals on the streets of London for traces of radiation, according to the Independent.

The increased surveillance stems from a fear that al-Qaeda might be planning a WMD attack on the country.

According to a new report, the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police have installed detection systems at Waterloo station and at London’s airports. Equipment is being placed at other major entry points. A vehicle with a radioactive material detector and a “walkthrough” scanner is also being tested.

Ten additional mobile radiation detection units are expected to be deployed around the country.

Also planned are “escape hoods” that would enable London police officers to breathe safely in case of a WMD attack. A vehicle capable of “extracting … significant important persons,” such as politicians and law enforcement and medical personnel, is also to be deployed.

Commander Mick Messenger, head of law enforcement’s response to a WMD incident, composed the report. It is expected to be presented to high-ranking police officials tomorrow in London.

According to the report, “The MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] will be involved in trials of the mobile radiological detection capability and use of a pedestrian portal.”

“Radiological detection has been/is being installed in major ports and transport hubs. Waterloo international station and Heathrow airport have fixed detection capabilities.”

“Since '9/11' the Metropolitan Police Service has been developing an operational response to a deliberate release of a chemical, biological or radioactive material,” Messenger added.

Messenger also said that police are considering forming special WMD teams that would carry firearms and perform surveillance around a terrorists’ hideout to check for traces of radiation.

“Officers are also equipped with a range of Home Office approved specialist equipment to assess the release of powder, liquid or vapor,” the report states. “In addition, the MPS has taken delivery of five purpose-built CBRN [Chemical, Biological Radiological or Nuclear] vehicles, including one specially designed for the extraction and decontamination of significant important persons” (Jason Bennetto, Independent, Feb. 22).

Back to top

Iran Unwilling to Accept Russian Nuclear Compromise

A Russian compromise proposal aimed at resolving the international standoff over Iran’s nuclear activities has yet to gain favor in Tehran, the Associated Press reported today (see GSN, Feb. 21).

“There are no reasons at this stage to resume dialogue,” an Iranian official told the Russian daily Vedomosti.

The official said Iran’s delegation to talks in Moscow earlier this week demanded that Russia enrich uranium on Iran’s behalf for no more than three to five years and that Iran be allowed to conduct the early stages of enrichment.

Russian negotiators, however, demanded that Tehran reinstate an enrichment moratorium, according to the official.

A senior Russian legislator yesterday took issue with Tehran.

“Unfortunately, Iran so far has not shown sufficient good will,” said Konstantin Kosachev, head of the foreign affairs committee in the lower house of parliament (Henry Meyer, Associated Press/Edmonton Journal, Feb. 22).

U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said yesterday that “no new ground was broken” in talks between Moscow and Tehran, AP reported.

He said cooperation on the issue among the major world powers was working.

“I think the momentum is with this coalition,” Burns said (Judith Ingram, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Feb. 22).

Experts believe Iran is postponing any decision on a deal with Russia in hopes of exploiting differences among the world powers, the Washington Post reported today.

“Iran is looking for weak spots and trying to play on the natural differences between the parties,” said Vladimir Sazhin of the Institute of Oriental Studies in Moscow. “When Iran finally says no to the Russian proposal, that’s when Russia will make its choice, and, I think, it will not be in favor of Iran.”

Another Russian analyst said Moscow would not break with longtime ally and trading partner Iran, and that prolonging talks is a way of avoiding a decision.

“You may have a long stalemate where Iran and Russia say an agreement is possible but the technical details are complex and are still being worked out,” said Sergei Mikheyev, a foreign policy analyst at the Center for Political Technologies in Moscow. “It’s important for Iran to drag this on so the West can’t draw a line. And it’s not advantageous for Russia to take a tough stand” (Peter Finn, Washington Post, Feb. 22).

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said yesterday that Iran could face U.N. economic sanctions, the Japan Times reported.

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s decision this month to report the issue to the Security Council “means a direct step toward economic sanctions,” Steinmeier said.

However, the international community “should not lose creativity” in seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis, he said (Reiji Yoshida, Japan Times, Feb. 22).

Meanwhile, Iran’s atomic energy chief said yesterday that the country’s nuclear facilities are built to withstand military strikes, Agence France-Presse reported.

“The enrichment facilities, particularly Natanz, are located underground and no offensive could damage them,” said Gholamreza Aghazadeh.

Aghazadeh added that Iran’s natural uranium supplies are extensive.

“Our reserves are extremely developed. We can extract uranium from mines in Bandar Abbas, Saghand and Yazd,” he said (Agence France-Presse/IranMania.com, Feb. 21).

Iranian cleric Mohsen Gharavian yesterday disputed claims that he endorsed the use of nuclear weapons, IRNA reported.

“We do not seek nuclear weapons and the Islamic religion encourages coexistence along with peace and friendship,” Gharavian said. “I said if the enemies plan to launch attacks on our vital sites, we have the capacity to defend ourselves and take retaliatory measures against them” (IRNA, Feb. 21).

Back to top

Bush Threatens Veto of Legislation Blocking Sale of Control of U.S. Ports to UAE Company

U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday that he would veto any effort to block the sale of shipping operations at a half dozen U.S. ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Feb. 21).

If “they pass a law, I’ll deal with it with a veto,” he said.

Lawmakers opposed to the agreement said the veto threat strengthens their resolve. 

“I will fight harder than ever for this legislation, and if it is vetoed I will fight as hard as I can to override it,” said Representative Pete King (R-N.Y.), who along with Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has vowed to introduce legislation blocking the $6.8 billion sale.

Republican and Democrats in Congress have noted that two of the Sept. 11 hijackers operated out of the United Arab Emirates. They also note that the country served as an important transfer point of nuclear components shipped to Iran, Libya and North Korea

The White House and senior administration officials are expected this week to attempt to convince the public that the plan is safe. Officials today are expected to explain the rationale behind the deal. 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said today that Bush had not known of the deal before his administration approved the sale, AP reported (Ted Bridis, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, Feb. 22).

If the Bush plan moves forward, it would be the first time a U.S. port operation was sold to a company owned by a foreign government, according to AP.

Under the plan, set to be finished by early next month, Dubai Ports would be put in charge of ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

“If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward,” Bush said.

The deal would require Dubai Ports to participate in U.S. programs targeting the shipments of nuclear and radioactive materials. The U.S. Coast Guard said it was close to finishing inspections of Dubai Ports sites in the Untied States. Around 33 other port operators voluntarily participate in these programs.

Senior Homeland Security official Stewart Baker said intelligence agencies were contacted “very early on to look at vulnerabilities and threats.”

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said yesterday that he would introduce legislation to delay the sale so that it could be looked at more carefully. He said the agreement raised “serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.”

Dubai Ports Chief Operating Officer Edward Bilkey said his company would comply with whatever security demands were made. He said Dubai “will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals” (Ted Bridis, Associated Press/ABC News.com, Feb. 22).

Back to top

South Korea to Push for Resuming Nuclear Talks

Top South Korea nuclear negotiator Chun Yung-woo has scheduled a round of shuttle diplomacy in a renewed push to revive stalled multilateral negotiations on North Korea’s nuclear programs, Reuters reported today (see GSN, Feb. 21).

“We expect the overall picture for the six-party talks will surface through the chief envoy’s visit to related countries for close consultations,” said Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon (Reuters, Feb. 22).

Washington has presented South Korean officials with specimens of the high-quality counterfeit U.S. currency allegedly by North Korea in 2001 and 2003, a U.S. Embassy official in Seoul told the Associated Press today.

“We have … determined that at least some of the $140,000 worth of counterfeit notes seized by (South Korean) police in April 2005 were 2001 series supernotes from the same family of notes that we have determined were manufactured in and distributed by the D.P.R.K.,” the official told AP (Burt Herman, Associated Press, Feb. 22).

Meanwhile, the United States is lobbying China to put more pressure on North Korea to return to multilateral talks, the Financial Times reported today.

“As soon as the Chinese let us know that they’re ready, we’ll be there,” said the top U.S. negotiator, Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill.

“China has enormous leverage with North Korea, but China is also North Korea’s neighbor. And when you’re a neighbor you sometimes don’t always use all the leverage that you could have,” Hill said. “We think everybody should try to do more.”

“I don’t think (North Korea is) going to walk away from an agreement that involves all of its neighbors because (it) is going to live with those neighbors for a long time,” he added (Dombey/Fifield, Financial Times, Feb. 22).

Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi held talks yesterday with Hill and Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick to prepare for a state visit by President Hu Jintao and to discuss the North Korean nuclear standoff, Agence France-Presse reported (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Feb. 21).

Back to top

U.S., India to Work on Nuclear Plan

U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns is expected to meet with Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran this week in New Delhi to work out differences between the two countries on a civilian nuclear technology sharing agreement, India Daily reported (see GSN, Feb. 21).

The two sides hope to have the agreement ready before U.S. President George W. Bush visits India in early March (India Daily, Feb. 21).

Back to top

Taiwan to Drop Plans for PAC-3 Acquisition

The Taiwanese Defense Ministry has said it would end its push to purchase six Patriot Advanced Capability 3 missile batteries from the United States, the Taiwanese Central News Agency reported yesterday (see GSN, Feb. 8).

The country’s legislature has in the past two years blocked two special arms budget bills that included provisions for the missile purchase. Opposition parties have argued that a 2004 referendum, which failed because less than 50 percent of eligible voters cast their ballots, bars the government from making the $4.3 billion PAC-3 purchase (Han Nai-kuo, Taiwanese Central News Agency/BBC Monitoring, Feb. 21).

Back to top