Transcript THE BIOLOGICAL AND TOXIN WEAPONS CONVENTION

Biological Warfare from
Antiquity to World War I
Lecture No. 2
1. Outline
• Pre-scientific biological warfare
– Slides ( 1 - 8 )
• Initial use of biological warfare
– Slides (9 - 16 )
• The beginnings of scientific biological
warfare
– Slides (17 - 20 )
2. Historical Allegations of
Biological Warfare
• The siege of Thun l’Eveque (1340)
– It has been suggested that siege engines
were used to hurl dead horses into the castle
forcing the defenders to evacuate
• The siege of Caffa (1346) and the ‘Black
Death’
– It has been suggested that plague victims
were catapulted into the fortified Genoese city
of Caffa by Mongol forces and that the fleeing
survivors carried the plague into Europe
3. Criteria to Assess Historical
Allegations (i)
• It should make political and historical
sense
• It should be supported with sufficient detail
to allow evaluation
• The alleged action should be technically
feasible in the context of the state of
scientific knowledge at the time of the
event
4. Criteria to Assess Historical
Allegations (ii)
• The reported outbreak should be a
plausible consequence of the alleged
action
• The source of the allegation should be
clearly documented
• There should be some evidence to support
the allegation
5. Fort Pitt 1763 (i)
• Pontiac Indian rebellion unites tribes from
New York to Virginia against British forces
that are badly extended. Indian attacks
overrun 8 forts and settlers are killed or
captured in large numbers.
• Smallpox breaks out in Fort Pitt. William
Trent commander of the civilian militia
makes interesting notes in his journal after
a meeting with the Indians.
Further Inf.
6. Fort Pitt 1763 (ii)
• Trent’s journal states that:
– “…Out of our regard to them, we gave them
two Blankets and a Handkerchief out of the
Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the
desired effect…”
• Fort Commander’s ledger states that:
– “To Sundries got to Replace in kind those
which were taken from people in the Hospital
to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians Viz:…”
– 2 Blankets…………. at 20/
£2..0..0
– 1 Silk Hndkerchief 10/& 1 linnen do: 3/6 ….0..13..6”
7. Smallpox as a Biological
Weapon (i)
• Epidemics amongst the American Indians
killed more than 50% of many affected
tribes
• Jenner’s 1796 demonstration that infection
with cowpox protected against smallpox
led to widespread vaccination
• WHO global campaign 1967-77 eradicated
the disease and vaccination is no longer
ordinarily practiced
8. Smallpox as a Biological
Weapon (ii)
• The infectious dose is low and as many as
10-20 second generation cases were often
infected from a single case
• There would be an incubation period of
12-14 days plus several days before the
rash was distinctive enough to suggest
smallpox
• The population today would be largely
lacking immunity
9. Koch’s Postulates
• The microbe must be present in every
case of the disease and absent from
healthy organisms
• The suspect microbe must be isolated and
grown in pure culture
• The disease must result when the microbe
is inoculated into the healthy host
• The same microbe must then be isolated
again from the diseased host
10. The ‘Golden Age of
Bacteriology’
• Some infectious diseases linked to
microbial causes in the ‘Golden Age’
– Anthrax, 1876
– Glanders, 1882
– Brucellosis, 1887
– Plague, 1894
– Botulinum toxin, 1896
– Tularemia, 1912
11. Biological Warfare in World
War I (i)
• Germany carried out an extensive sabotage campaign
using agents such as glanders and anthrax in an attempt
to prevent valuable cavalry and draft animals such as
horses being delivered to the opposing Allied Powers.
The Campaign was:
– Directed by the General Staff who probably saw earlier
agreements as only restricting anti-personnel biological warfare
– Biological sabotage in the USA was part of a larger campaign
aimed at interrupting the flow of valuable war material
– The central figure in the campaign was a physician Anton Dilger,
born in the USA of German parents, but who had spent much of
his life in Germany
– Cultured agents were administered to horses in eastern
seaboard ports by German seamen trapped in the US because
of the British blockade
12 Biological Warfare in World War
I (ii)
• The German sabotage campaign also extended to
Romania. When Romania joined the Allied Powers in
1916 some of the cultures were discovered
• Also operations were carried out in Norway to attack
horses and reindeer draft animals. Anthrax was in
capillary tubes embedded in sugar cubes to be fed to the
animals. Amazingly, one of the sugar cubes was
discovered recently in a police museum and Bacillus
anthracis identified by modern PCR methods
• Attempts were also made to sabotage supplies from
Argentina
• Less is known about it, but France also carried out a
similar anti-animal campaign on the western front
13. Anthrax as a Biological Warfare
Agent (i)
• Bacillus anthracis is an aerobic, gram-positive
spore-forming nonmotile species with very
special characteristics for the bioweaponeer:
– The life cycle involves vegetative growth in the victim
– normally a herbivore – until the toxins produced
cause death
– Then when the animal dies the bacterium forms very
environmentally resistant spores that protect the
organism until it enters the next victim
– The fact that the spores are so resistant to
environmental degradation and the lethality is so high
means that anthrax is an ideal biological weapons
agent
14. Anthrax as a Biological Warfare
Agent (ii)
• The accidental release of aerosolised anthrax
spores from a military facility in Sverdlovsk in
1979 resulted in some 79 cases of anthrax and
68 deaths thus emphasising the dangerous
nature of inhalation anthrax
• Spores deposited in the lungs are injested by
macrophages and transported to lymp nodes.
Germination can take up to 60 days but once
germination starts disease onset is very rapid
15. Anthrax as a Biological Warfare
Agent (iii)
• It is estimated from primate data that the
LD 50 (dose sufficient to kill 50% of people
exposed to it) is between 2,500 and
55,000 inhaled anthrax spores
• Virulence requires the presence of an
antiphagocytic capsule and three toxin
components (protective antigen, lethal
factor and oedema factor)
16. Anthrax as a Biological
Weapons Agent (iv)
• Spores grow easily on ordinary media at 37 degrees and
have a very characteristic appearance. Although
identification should therefore be simple, few modern
microbiologists will have encountered anthrax. Early
signs of the disease are nonspecific complicating
diagnosis
• Given the very rapid course of the infection once the
spores have germinated early administration of effective
antibiotics is essential to save victims
• Vaccination against anthrax is possible but not a
practical proposition for the whole population
• Decontamination after an attack with aerosolised anthrax
is a daunting proposition as demonstrated after the
‘anthrax letters’ attack with small quantities of anthrax in
the USA in 2001
17. The 1925 Geneva Protocol
• Prior to World War I a series of international
agreements had placed some restrictions on
poisoned weapons
• Following the war there was discussion within
the League of Nations of further restrictions
• These restrictions naturally concentrated on
chemical weapons because of the large-scale
use of chemical weapons in the war
• In 1925 arguments put forward by Poland
ensured that the use of biological weapons was
also covered in the 1925 Geneva Protocol
18. French Biological Warfare
Preparations After the War (i)
• Concern over biological warfare led to the
Trillant Report of 1922 on “The use of
bacteriological weapons in war”. This:
– “…not only enables a detailed understanding of the
motivation and reasoning behind the rapid expansion
of the French programme, but also provided a
scientific basis for the work.”
– “…suggested that they [biological weapons] would be
appropriate, especially during the period of
mobilization, against such targets as civilian
populations, urban centres, troop assembly points,
barracks, stations, factories or industrial sites…”
19. French Biological Warfare
Preparations After the War (ii)
• The Trillant report:
– “…evaluated microbial diseases that could have a
military role and listed those which appeared
useable…yellow fever, plague…brucellosis…and
foot-and-mouth disease…”
– “The section of the report on experimental work
presented Trillant’s findings on the aerial transmission
of bacteriological agents and the influence of various
factors on their dissemination…”
– “…Trillant stressed that laboratory trials had shown
that it was possible to create artificial microbial clouds
with all the physical properties of natural clouds…”
20. French Biological Warfare
Preparations After the War (iii)
• “In the autumn of 1925 the War Ministry:
– “…decided to direct research towards the
development of ‘explosive bombs with special
charges (microbial cultures) carried by aircraft’. The
aim was to develop a device whose burst on ground
impact would…produce clouds consisting of
…microorganisms…with the capability…of producing
pathogenic effects…”
– “…Full-scale trials were carried out in October
1926….Nine bombs were dropped from a Navy
Goliath seaplane….The results of these tests were
not only ‘favourable’ but they also enabled validation
of the most important theoretical data…”
Sample Questions
1. Critically analyse the view that there are many
examples of biological warfare in the historical
record prior to the “scientific understanding” of the
“microbial” causes of infectious diseases.
2. How dangerous would smallpox would be if it was
used as a biological weapon today?
3. Describe the main phases of either the German antipersonnel biological sabotage campaign in World
War I or the French offensive biological warfare
programme between World War I and World War II.
4. What is the 1925 Geneva Protocol? How did it come
to cover biological warfare and what is its status
today?
References
(Slide 1)
• Geissler, E., and van Courtland Moon, J. (Eds.), (1999) Biological and
Toxin Weapons Research, Development and Use from the Middle
Ages to 1945 (SIPRI Chemical & Biological Warfare Studies No. 18).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
(Slide 2)
• Horrox, R. (ed.), The Black Death (Manchester University Press:
Manchester, 1994), pp. 14-26. p. 17.
Cited at pp. 14 in Wheelis, M. (1999) ‘Biological Warfare before 1914’, In
Geissler, E., and van Courtland Moon, J. (2001) Biological and Toxin
Weapons Research,Development and Use from the Middle Ages to
1945 (SIPRI Chemical & BiologicalWarfare Studies No. 18). Oxford:
Oxford University Press. pp. 8-34.
(Slide 3)
• Barnes-Svarney, P. (1995) The New York Public Library Science
Desk Reference, New York: Macmillan
(Slide 5)
• Volwiler, A. T. (ed.), ‘Willium Trent’s Journal at Fort Pitt, 1763’,
Mississippi Valley Historical Review, vol. 11 (1924), pp. 390-413.
Cited at p. 22 in Wheelis, M. (1999) ‘Biological Warfare before 1914’, In
Geissler, E., and van Courtland Moon, J. (2001) Biological and
Toxin Weapons Research, Development and Use from the Middle
Ages to 1945 (SIPRI Chemical & Biological Warfare Studies No.
18). Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 8-34.
(Slide 6)
• Wheelis, M. (1999) ‘Biological Warfare before 1914’, In Geissler, E.,
and van Courtland Moon, J. (2001) Biological and Toxin Weapons
Research, Development and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945
(SIPRI Chemical & Biological Warfare Studies No. 18). Oxford:
Oxford University Press. pp. 8-34.
(Slide
7)
• Henderson. D. A., Inglesby, T. V., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher. M. S.,
Eitzen, E. M. Jr., Jahrling, P. B., A. M., Hauer, J., Layton, M.,
McDade, J., Osterholm, M. T., Toole, T. O’., Parker, G., Perl, T. M.,
Russel, P. K., and Tonat, K. (1999) ‘Smallpox as a Biological
Weapon Medical and Public Health Management’, in JAMA 281(22),
pp. 2127-2137
(Slide 10)
• Inf.1
Inglesby, T. V., Dennis, D. T., Henderson. D. A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher.
M. S., Eitzen, E. M. Jr., Fine, A. D., Friedlander, A. M., Hauer, J.,
Koerner, J. F., Layton, M., McDade, J., Osterholm, M. T., Toole, T.
O’., Parker, G., Perl, T. M., Russel, P. K., Schoch-Spana, M., and
Tonat, K. (2000) ‘Plague as a Biological Weapon: Medical and
Public Health Management’, in JAMA 283(17), pp. 2281-2290
• Inf.2
Arnon, S. S., Schecter, R., Inglesby, T. V., Henderson. D.
A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher. M. S., Eitzen, E. M. Jr., Fine,
A. D., Hauer, J., Layton, M., Lillibridge, S., Osterholm, M.
T., Toole, T. O’., Parker, G., Perl, T. M., Russel, P. K.,
Swerdlow, D. L., and Tonat, K. (2001) ‘Botulinum Toxin
as a Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health
Management’, in JAMA 285(8), pp. 1059-1070
• Inf.3
Dennis, D. T., Inglesby, T. V., Henderson. D. A., Bartlett, J.
G., Ascher. M. S., Eitzen, E. M. Jr., Fine, A. D.,
Friedlander, A. M., Hauer, J., Layton, M., Lillibridge, S.,
McDade, J., Osterholm, M. T., Toole, T. O’., Parker, G.,
Perl, T. M., Russel, P. K., and Tonat, K. ‘Tularemia as a
Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health
Management’, in JAMA 285(21), pp. 2763-2773
(Slide 11)
• NAS Record Group 76, Records of the Mixed Claims
Commission, Entry 29 (Record Relating to the Sabotage
Claims Filed with the Commission), Box 3,
‘Memorandum re Carl Dilger with specific respect to the
records as it existed at the time of the decision of
October 16 1930’, 12 Nov. 1935, p. 4.
Cited at pp. 41-42 in Wheelis, M. (1999) ‘Biological
Sabotage in World War I’, In Geissler, E., and van
Courtland Moon, J. (2001) Biological and Toxin
Weapons Research, Development and Use from the
Middle Ages to 1945 (SIPRI Chemical & Biological
Warfare Studies No. 18). Oxford: Oxford University
Press. pp. 35-62.
(Slide 12)
• Redmond, C., Pearce, M. J., Manchee, R. J., and
Berdal, B. P., (1998) Deadly Relic of the Great War’, in
Nature 393. pp. 747-748. Available from
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6687/full/39
3747a0.html
(Slide 13)
Inglesby, T. V., Henderson. D. A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher. M.
S., Eitzen, E. M. Jr., Friedlander, A. M., Hauer, J.,
McDade, J., Osterholm, M. T., Toole, T. O’., Parker, G.,
Perl, T. M., Russel, P. K., and Tonat, K. (1999) ‘Anthrax
as a Biological Weapon: Medical and Public Health
Management’, in JAMA 281(18), pp. 1735-1745
(Slide 14)
• Meselson, M., Guillemin, J., Hugh-Jones, M., Langmuir, A., Popova,
I., Shelokov, A and Yampolskaya, O. (1994) ‘The Sverdlovsk
Anthrax Outbreak of 1979’, Science 266, pp. 1202-1208. Available
from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/266/5188/1202
(Slide 15)
• Inglesby, T. V., Henderson. D. A., Bartlett, J. G., Ascher. M. S.,
Eitzen, E. M. Jr., Friedlander, A. M., Hauer, J., McDade, J.,
Osterholm, M. T., Toole, T. O’., Parker, G., Perl, T. M., Russel, P. K.,
and Tonat, K. (1999) ‘Anthrax as a Biological Weapon: Medical and
Public Health Management’, in JAMA 281(18), pp. 1735-1745
(Slide 16)
• Los Angels Times (2002) Contractors’ Cost Overruns from Anthrax
Cleanup: $50 Million, 11 September. p. A-33 in printed edition
[Online] Available from
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/sep/01/nation/na-anthrax1
(Slide 17)
• Mierzejewski, J. W., and van Courtland Moon, J. E. (Eds
(1999) ‘Poland and Biological Weapons’, in Geissler, E.,
and van Courtland Moon, J. E. (Eds,). (1999) Biological
and Toxin Weapons Research, Development and Use
from the Middle Ages to 1945 (SIPRI Chemical &
Biological Warfare Studies No. 18). Oxford: Oxford
University Press. pp. 63-69.
(Slide 18)
• Lepick, O. (1999) French activities related to biological
warfare, 1919-45. In: Geissler, E. and van Courtland
Moon, J. (eds.) Biological and Toxin Weapons:
Research, Developmentand Use from the Middle Ages
to 1945. SIPRI Chemical & Biological Warfare Studies,
no.18. Oxford: Oxford University Press.