Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A panel of scientists is needed to monitor development of biological agents that could be used as weapons, Britain’s Royal Society states in a paper to be submitted today at a U.N. Foundation conference (see GSN, April 13).

The academy also says research proposals and papers should be filtered if “there is a tangible cause for concern in terms of harmful application,” and that nations should strengthen laws against development of biological weapons.

“There is a need for the scientific community, governments and relevant agencies to be fully aware of the potential of scientific advances both in enabling the illegal development of more lethal weapons and in developing more effective countermeasures to the use of such weapons,” according to the society. “The need to underpin the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is emphasized, because of the use in biomedical science of potentially harmful pathogens and toxins and the risk of this research being misused in bioterrorist attacks,” it added.

The paper, The Individual and Collective Roles Scientists Can Play in Strengthening International Treaties, will be presented today during a discussion on biosecurity sponsored by the U.N. Foundation, National Academies and Nuclear Threat Initiative.

Monitoring weapons of mass destruction requires access to scientists with expertise in the cutting-edge technology often used to develop those weapons, the paper states. While organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons gather such personnel to watch over nuclear and chemical arms treaties, there is no corresponding body for the Biological Weapons Convention.

A BWC experts advisory panel would be designed to meet two key needs, said Royal Society spokesman Bob Ward — keeping policymakers aware of the latest developments in biological science that could be related to weaponry and keeping up with technology for detecting biological weapons.

It would be up to the 151 convention member states to decide if they wanted a panel with investigative authority, Ward said. Efforts to create such an organization died in 2001 when the United States refused to sign the protocol establishing a set of treaty compliance provisions.

“We remain hopeful that the United States will move toward agreement on the terms of a protocol,” Ward said.

Responsibility for prohibiting the spread of biological weapons also lies with scientists themselves and with world leaders, according to the Royal Society.

There should be discussion aimed at organizing more rigorous codes of conduct for scientific practice, the paper states. These could range from basic prohibitions against plagiarism or conflicts of interest to proposals more specific to weapons of mass destruction, such as rules for security and handling of biological, chemical or nuclear materials.

Research proposals should be filtered out “where the potential harm of publication outweighs the potential societal benefits,” a Royal Society press release states. Research sponsors and scientific journal editors should make that determination “on a case-by-case basis,” and should avoid setting up a broad vetting process for research proposals, the organization added.

National and international laws on bioweapons must also be strengthened to create “an enforceable code of practice,” the paper states.

The Royal Society will publish a report Wednesday on detection and decontamination of chemical and biological agents.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The Nuclear Threat Initiative is the sole sponsor of Global Security Newswire, which is published independently by National Journal Group.]