FREE ESSAY ON USING THE SCIENCE OF LIFE AS A WEAPON

USING THE SCIENCE OF LIFE AS A WEAPON

I Introduction
1) Definition of Biological Warfare
2) Talking Points
II Biological Weapons
1) Different Types Used
2) Applications
III History of Biological Warfare
1) How It Has Been Used in Past Wars
2) How We Can Expect It to Be Used in the Future
IV Are We At Risk of Being Attacked With Biological Weapons?
1) Defending Ourselves Against Biological Weapons
V Conclusion
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) warfare is one of the most dreaded forms of attack
on the battlefield. In the last century, we learned a great deal about how life works,
how it is organized. We have used that technology to save many lives by curing diseases
and vaccinating against viruses. But it seems that whenever we have a breakthrough in
science, there is an ever-present danger of a form of weapon resulting from the
discovery. Biological Warfare is defined as bacteria, viruses, fungi or rickettsia, which
are used in wartime to cause disease or death in people (Hay, 1984).
It seems like a contradiction. Doctors work hard to find cures and vaccinations for the
various diseases and viruses that plague our population. On the other side of the coin,
however, there are people that would use disease as a weapon. They not only use the sort
of disease that nature provides, but try to create more effective and horrific manmade
diseases. Biological weapons, as opposed to chemical weapons, are effective with a
relatively small quantity of agent. However, most of these agents have a limited shelf
life, as their activity is continually declining (Hay, 1984).
Most biological agents are dispersed in aerosol form. They can be sprayed from a small
cylinder with compressed air, spread by guided missiles, dispersed as a powder from
aircraft, or used in a cluster of bombs. The danger is the potential for these biological
agents, if successful in infecting a population, can be spread quickly. The U.S. Navy
tested the effectiveness of Biological weapons on a metropolis in November of 1950. They
released harmless bacteria off the California coast, sufficient to contaminate 117 square
miles of the San Francisco Bay area. Scientists reported that nearly all of the 800,000
inhabitants of the city had inhaled the bacteria (Hay, 1984).
To cause an epidemic, an enemy would select a highly contagious virus or bacteria. They
would decide whether to use an extremely lethal agent or one that would temporarily
incapacitate a population or army to weaken defenses. Most biological weapons are
influenza viruses or pneumonic plague bacillus. These meet the requirement of being
highly contagious by human contact. As an example, an estimated 20 million people died in
the great influenza pandemic of 1918 and 1919 - just three percent of those infected.
Surprisingly, then, this great loss of life actually represents a low mortality rate
(Solomon, 1999).
For incapacitating the target, brucellosis is preferred. This is a chronic infection
caused by the Brucella species of bacteria. A person can be infected by skin contact, by
eating or drinking infected material, or by inhaling the organism. This is also an agent
that can be produced easily in fermenters. Symptoms vary, but common are a severe chill,
a recurring fever, sweating, headache, loss of appetite, extreme exhaustion, aching
joints and depression. The symptoms last upwards of four weeks, but relapses can continue
for years (Hay, 1984).
The most well known form of brucellosis is anthrax. Aggressors favor this primarily
because it is lethal and relatively easy to manufacture. Anthrax is caused by the
bacterium bacillus anthracis, and is spread by skin contact, contact with infected
animals, or by inhaling or ingesting the agent. The mortality rate is highest when
infected by inhalation, at eighty per cent of untreated cases. The danger of anthrax is
long term as well. Forty years after being tested on Gruinard, the island is still
contaminated with the bacterium (Solomon, 1999).
Although the danger of biological weapons increases as technology progresses, it is not a
new threat. One of the earliest reported uses was in the sixth century B.C., when the
Assyrians poisoned their enemy's wells with a fungus disease called rye ergot. The
commander of British forces in America, Jeffrey Amherst, used biological warfare on the
Ottawa Indians. He sent two wagons of blankets from the smallpox hospital to the tribe as
a "peace-offering." And in the 15th century, Pizarro reportedly presented the South
American natives with variola-contaminated clothing (Solomon, 1999).
The use of biological warfare started to spread, however, in the first World War. Both
sides of the war used these agents for tactical purposes. On the battlefield itself,
however, there is an inherent danger in using these weapons - that of infecting one's own
troops. Also, there is the extreme risk that the disease may get out of control, spread
by an unanticipated shift in wind like a wildfire. For this reason, the application of
choice for this weapon is long range and terrorist attack. During the cold war, many
nations began experimenting and stockpiling biological and chemical weapons. The low cost
and ease of manufacturing is the primary reason an aggressor might focus on this form of
weapon. Perhaps more so because of their shear effectiveness (Horowitz, 1997).
There is a debate today as to whether we are at risk of an attack by biological weapons.
We know that rogue nations, such as Iraq and Iran, have tried to stockpile these weapons,
in spite of the United Nations efforts to cease that activity. Officials in the Clinton
administration have stated that there is no question - eventually, we will be hurt by
these agents. One of our saving graces is that, sometimes, the agents do not act as
planned. A Japanese cult launched at least nine germ attacks in Tokyo in the early
1990's, attempting to kill millions. The strikes, however, produced no known injuries or
deaths (Solomon, 1999).
The largest threat comes, not from aggressive nations, but from terrorists. A person can
act far more radically than a government. Ifsuch a sociopath got hold of a biological
agent, they could take our an entire metropolis. They could even spread the virus or
bacteria around an entire nation. Imagine if such a terrorist found his way to San
Francisco International Airport. He makes his way to the domestic flights terminal, an
aerosol pump easily hidden in his briefcase, he releases a botulinum toxin. He leaves
quickly to avoid exposing himself. Now he has transmitted one of the most deadly known
substances across the country. It may seem like a far-fetched scenario, but the fact is
that at least sixteen nations and an unknown number of terrorist groups can now produce
biological weapons (Osterholm, 1997).
Aside from combating biological weapons, one of the major tasks is being able to quickly
identify one in the area. The U.S. military uses patches that can be attached to a
soldier's arm or on machinery. These detect just four of the most commonly used
biological and chemical weapons. The soldier has just a few seconds to react by donning
his protective mask - followed by a decontamination procedure and upgrade to higher
levels of Mission Oriented Protective Posture (MOPP) gear, such as an extra layer of
heavy clothing and chemical over boots.
Currently, the Johns Hopkins University, in cooperation with the Centers for Disease
Control, are working on methods for identifying dangerous organisms. However, these tests
require lengthy procedures, expert technicians, and wet-laboratory environments - as well
as a need for non-renewable reagents. What does this mean? A lot of money. The goal is to
detect aerosols that contain dangerous organisms in less than five minutes. Thankfully,
our country has the scientific and engineering talent to minimize the threat of
biological terrorism. The devices will undergo testing at the U.S. Army Dugway Proving
Grounds. Successful results will lead to manufacturing of the instruments for military as
well as civilian agencies (Abelson, 1999).
NBC warfare is the ultimate use of science for destruction. Not only do we have the
ability to destroy every living organism on the planet, we have various ways of carrying
out the task. The question is - can mankind survive it's own technology? This depends on
the goodwill of those who possess the destructive technology. As stated previously, it
takes just one sociopath with the right technology to wipe out an entire continent.
Hopefully, the persons who poses the power to destroy the world, will realize that
everyone is a loser in an NBC war - and that long term peace will mean the pursuit of
technology to better mankind.
Bibliography
Abelson, Philip. "Biological Warfare." Science. Vol. 286 p. 1677. 26 Nov 1999.
Hay, A.; Murphy, S.; Rose, S. No Fire No Thunder. New York, 1984. Monthly Review Press.
Horowitz, Leonard. Emerging Viruses: Aids and Ebola. Rockport, 1997. Tetrahedron, Inc.


  
    
      Can`t find essay here? Order custom written term paper. We offer high quality
      and quick writing for only $12.95 per page!
    
  





Advances In Artificial Intelligence
Advances in AI With advances in technology many researchers have become captivated with
the pursuit of Artificial Intelligence. Numerous fields of study have tried to contribute
their knowledge in order to create intelligence. However, years of research have thus far
been unable to create human intelligence. The endeavour seems doomed to fail, for a
century of thought which has tried to simply define intelligence has yet to succeed. This
lack of a concrete tangible definition does not preclude its existence but merely points
to its complex nature. Human intelligence could be viewed as being as diverse as its
population however this type of analysis leads us to the individual and becomes useless.
There is no doubt that there are universal patterns of what could be considered
intelligence and it is these patterns which may give us insight. Because these patterns
of 'intelligence' could be linked to humanity's evolution, much time is devoted to find
what forces or factors are responsible for them. There are few who would still adhere to
a model of Nature vs. Nurture rather substituting the vs. for via. Both environmental and
genetic factors contribute to human intelligence, however which of these, if any, is more
important in shaping intelligence is a source of fierce disagreement. It seems apparent
that those who posses higher levels of intelligence are accorded a certain amount of
privilege. Therefore where intelligence comes from is essential in determining the
validity of endowing privilege on those who posses it. Is it the case that the very
definition of intelligence is socially constructed in order to maintain the existing
social inequalities? Is it the case that social inequalities are merely a reflection of
the variance in intelligence? Do social inequalities reduce the oppressed ability to
develop intelligence? Is intelligence merely a small factor contributing to the uneven
distribution of resources within our world? Is intelligence a product of hard work or
just luck? Evolution of Intelligence Before we can begin to examine the modern day
conceptions of intelligence, it is necessary to look at how human intelligence has
evolved. For the purpose of simplicity I am making the assumption that the general theory
of evolution is accurate. That is that human did not spontaneously appear on Earth and
are a product of millions of years of evolution. Therefore it is conceivable that the
very way in which we think was once quite different from today's mode of logic and
reason. Amaury de Reincourt looks at a turning point in the evolution of human
intelligence in her article "Sex and Power in History". In this article she examines the
rise of patriarchy out of matriarchy. She iterates how this shift was a result of man's
gradual development of his role in procreation. This marked a mental threshold from
magico-symbolic thought processes to rational thinking. The creation of life was now
understood in terms of causality rather than mysticism. From this point forth, all the
female-oriented myths were reinterpreted patriarchally. The cyclical nature of
female-oriented thought was replaced by the linear thought patterns of male-oriented
thinking. This further led to the notion of progress and later reflective thought. The
mythology that prevailed under matriarchal rule was replaced by the masculine thought
process of rationalism and logic. The overall effect is that tension replaced repetitive
rhythm. This led the way to the concept of time as being unidirectional instead of the
lunar-vegetal cycle which previously set-up the notion of time. History could now be
viewed with a beginning, middle, and an end. This had great significance in releasing man
from the endless repetitive cycles of time, which could now be seen as a linear
development with unique moral significance for each step of the way. It is apparent from
this article that logic and reason are not value neutral, they are concepts which are
steeped in a particular ideology. What it also inadvertently points to the idea of
interpreting intelligence from completely opposite perspectives. Thinking in terms of
cycles instead of our linear modes of thoughts produces completely different types or
patterns of intelligence. It serves as a caution in trying to determine and define the
very slippery notion of intelligence. Intelligence defined The inherent difficulty in
studying intelligence is reflected one of psychology's maxims; 'the human mind's greatest
challenge is to understand itself'. This has nonetheless not deterred psychologists in
attempting to measure this ambiguous concept. The first to propose and design an
intelligence test was Alfred Binet. He was summoned by the French government to design a
test that would be able to alert educators of children who might benefit from remedial
instruction. The test was so successful in determining school performance that it was
accepted throughout the western world. In 1916 Lewis Terman from Standford University
adapted it for use with American children. It thus became the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Test and is the test most commonly referred to when speaking of an IQ test. This test and
others like it take a holistic approach to intelligence. They point to the idea of
intelligence as a unified trait. This idea was expanded in 1927 by Spearman who noticed
that all the items on the Stanford-Binet test were correlated and thus proposed a general
factor, which he termed 'g', of intelligence. He viewed the different items as measuring
specific factors he termed 's'. The concept that intelligence can be viewed as a singular
trait is one that has lost its appeal over the years. In an article published by the
Progressive Labor Party 'Racism, Intelligence and the Working Class', the authors bring
some of the common criticisms that have be directed at such tests. The political agenda
they wish to push clouds some its points but the overall criticism of IQ tests is that
they are designed to measure a particular type of ability defined by the ruling class. In
essence this argument points to the fact that these tests are culturally biased. Hence,
the scores are not only indicative of only one potential pattern of intelligence but
furthermore they do not reflect an objective universal pattern of intelligence but rather
one that is socially constructed. The first of these criticism was addressed in the mid
1960's by J.P.Guilford. He devised a 180-factor model of intelligence, which classified
each intellectual task according to three dimensions: content, mental operation, and
product. This theory is the predecessor to Gardner's theory of multiple intelligence,
which was developed, in the last 15 years. This theory identifies seven independent
intelligences on the basis of distinct sets of processing operations applied in
culturally meaningful activities (linguistic, logico-mathematical, musical, spatial,
bodily/kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal). This theory addressing both of the
major flaws, which were present in some of the earlier, tests. Nonetheless, Gardner's
theory is just that a theory, it is not rooted in strong empirical data. However, I
believe that this is, to date, the best theory of intelligence that has been developed.
Nature or Nurture? Gardner proposes that there are seven distinct types of human
intelligence patterns, which manifest themselves to varying degrees in each of us. This
might begin to account for the infinite variations in human abilities. There could
possibly be more than just seven but even five types, for example, of intelligences could
be mixed in varying degrees to produce the diversity of human existences throughout the
ages. However this does not speak to the origins of intelligence. Is the type and degree
of intelligence that we possess a product of our genes or does our environment determine
it? A more sensible question might be to ask which, nature or nurture, is in the driver's
seat? Researchers have been trying to design experiments to investigate this very
question for at least a century. The most common type of study has been one, which
investigate the intelligence in identical twins reared apart. This should allow the
researcher to differentiate between the effects of nature and nurture on intelligence.
The results have given us estimates as high as 70% for the attribution of genetic
influence on intelligence variance(Ken Richardson, Understanding Intelligence). Although
these results seem to be conclusive evidence for the view that intelligence is primarily
genetic it is not without its critics. It is fairly rare for identical twins to be reared
apart, therefore producing small sample size and thus results that can not easily be
generalized. The environments that separated twins are brought up in are likely to be
similar, making it difficult to accurately attribute variations in intelligence to their
genetic makeup. The most common criticism of all such studies is the very measurement of
intelligence. Without an accepted definition, intelligence can not be accurately measured
and thus trying to understand its development is somewhat futile. There are so many
factors that contribute to human intelligence and development that trying to find causal
links is an exercise in fantasy rather than a scientific endeavour. For us to understand
exactly how intelligence develops would be to unravel one of the most illusive mysteries
facing humankind. I don't however, believe that this puzzle is likely to be solved in the
near future. Social Deconstruction Whichever determinant one believes to have the greater
influence on intelligence, it is undeniable that the other still plays a part. Therefore,
the environment in which we are raised has a direct effect on the type and the degree of
intelligence we may develop, the only ambiguity is how large or small this effect might
be. Even if only 30% of the variation in intelligence is attributable to environmental
factors, this effect should still be detectable. Victoria J. Molfese, Lisabeth F.
DiLalla, and Debra Bunce from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale conducted a
study, which attempted to measure the effects of socio-economic status, home environment,
and biomedical risk factors on intelligence test scores of 3 to 8 year olds. Home
environment quality was evaluated according to maternal intelligence, characteristics of
the home, and parenting practices. Although the researchers found that home environment
was the best predictor of scores on intelligence test scores, the definition of a
superior home environment seems fraught with biases. The conclusion that the researchers
draw is a valid one based on their data but may not easily be generalized. A good home
environment is undoubtedly essential to the intellectual development of young children
but what constitute such an environment is certainly open to debate. Differences in
values may lead to incorrect assessment of home environment and thus skew the results.
The second measure that they employed, as a predictor of intelligence test scores, was
that of Socio-Economic Status. This is, in my opinion, is a more objective factor. The
results from the study showed that SES had a greater effect on predicting intelligence
test scores of 5 to 8 year olds. Many studies have also shown that early adolescent test
scores are positively correlated with SES. These results would seem to suggest that as
children become older and gain an awareness of their SES their intellectual development
suffers. This could be the result of stigmatization, once the individual realized that
they do not posses the things that others in their environment do, they may feel
inferior. Conversely their peers might treat them in a negative manner leading to what
Goffman termed a 'spoiled identity'. Because money is often equate with morality, those
children who are monetarily disadvantaged might feel and be made to feel that they are
inferior which might affect their self-conception and lead to decreased motivation. It is
extremely difficult to draw any conclusion because of the dynamic relationship of the
multitude of environmental factors that work together to shape intelligence. No links
were found between biomedical risk factors, such as preterm and low birthweight babies,
and intelligence test scores. This study shows a link between SES and the development of
a pattern of intelligence, which is tested through conventional IQ tests. It is hard to
generalize these results to other types of intellectual patterns such as those in
Gardner's model. However, if SES affects IQ through the process of stigmatization than
there seems to be no reason why it should not affect the development of other types of
intellectual patterns such as interpersonal and intrapersonal intelligence. We have all
experienced the negative effects that stigmatization can have so it isn't hard to imagine
that being stigmatize due to a factor which is enduring and beyond one's control could
potentially have profound effects. A study conducted by Steve Henry, Ph.D. Gen. Dir.
Planning, Eval. & Grant Procurement, looked at the correlation between ethnicity and SES
and achievement on a standardized test for 4000 students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 11. The
findings showed that ethnicity accounted for 6.5% of the variability in scores while SES
accounted for 15.9%. There was also a strong link between SES and ethnicity. White
students were twice as likely to come from a higher SES bracket than were minorities.
This study again suggests that a low SES is a strong predictor of success on standardized
achievement tests. It also points to the fact that ethnicity by itself is not a good
predictor of achievement. This is in line with mountains of evidence gathered over the
last two decades which debunk the myth that race is correlated with intelligence. The
horrors of World War II awoke the world to the reality that associating inferiority with
a particular 'race' can have dire consequences. More recent sociological investigations
have questioned the entire notion of race. Race can be seen as a way of classifying a
group of people based on physical traits that have been given a social meaning. It is a
social construction used to maintain a hierarchy, which favours the dominant 'race'.
Having darker skin does not correlate with lower intellectual abilities but does
correlate with lower socio-economic status. As we have seen low SES also correlates with
ethnicity. It would suggest that the mere belief the visible minorities are
intellectually inferior puts them at a socio-economic disadvantage, which leads to poorer
intellectual development. In order to properly assess the variance in intelligence across
humanity, we must first strip away some of the widely held myths about social groupings.
It is extremely important to examine and deconstruct the social meaning behind existing
groupings such as race, gender, and sexuality before we can properly asses what
environmental factors contribute to the formation of human intelligence. Intelligence as
a privilege There is no doubt that the people who demonstrate greater intellectual
ability are accorded more freedoms and privileges in our World. As I have iterated
intelligence is not a value-neutral concept and is subject to social construction. The
first of these constructions is that particular types of intelligence are more valuable
to human evolution. Scientist who posses high level of, what Gardner termed,
logico-mathematical intelligence are accorded greater prestige while social workers who
demonstrate high levels of interpersonal intelligence are given less. The social
construction of intelligence can warp our perception of the usefulness of certain types
of knowledge. It is my opinion that various patterns of intelligence should be accorded
equal importance to ensure that human intelligence is allowed to evolve in all of its
diverse manifestations. However, this type of social construction of intelligence
transcends all other social constructs. That is that all 'races', for example, should
demonstrate an equal distribution of all the patterns of intelligence. The current
conceptions of what types of intelligence are most desirable can not be attributed to
socially constructed groups such as race or gender. Therefore we are all subject to equal
discrimination based on the type of intelligence in which we demonstrate the greatest
aptitude. However, as I have already mentioned, the mere belief that a group is endowed
with particular patterns of intelligence can influence development. The second dimension
of intelligence that endows privileges is that of degree. Without relying on conventional
IQ test to show that humans differ in levels of intelligence, it seems that life
experience has taught us that we are not all as 'intelligent' regardless of what type of
intelligence we are referring to. Some of the variance can be attributed to micro and
macro environmental factors but for evolution to work 'intelligence' must be passed down
from generation to generation. Therefore it seems reasonable to suggest that if all
environmental factors were controlled we would still end up with varying degrees of
intelligence across all populations. Viewed in these terms, intelligence seems to give a
great deal of privilege quite arbitrarily. However, intelligence does not develop in a
completely passive manner. We are not slaves to our environment or our genes. The
development of intelligence is also dependent on effort. Learning is not easy regardless
of much intellectual privilege you might have. The dimension of merit further complicates
the assessment of intelligence as a privilege. If effort was the only factor which
determined intelligence than it could not be considered a privilege. It would seem that
there are limits to effort, one who does not have a certain level of intellectual
capacity may never be able to attain high levels of intelligence regardless of effort.
But conversely, there are those who may be underachievers as a result of lack of effort.
We can however assume that all socially constructed groups are apt to show similar
patterns of effort although being the oppressed might make one complacent about their
chances to advance and reduce their willingness to make the required effort The ultimate
privilege Are there different levels of advantages? We know that certain groups are given
a host of privileges solely based on their membership to a socially constructed group.
Peggy McIntosh lists some of these privileges that are endowed to whites in her essay
'White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences
Through Work in Women's Studies (1988). She illustrates quite poignantly how we take for
granted many little and big privileges that the colour of our skin gives or takes away
from us. She also cautions us about finding parallels between the privileges given to
different groups. " Since racism, sexism, heterosexism are not the same, the advantages
associated with them should not be seen as the same" (p.104). I think this also points to
the suggestion that various privileges give us varying degrees of unearned advantages.
Therefore the advantages given to a white male might be mitigated severely if that male
is homosexual or the privileges given to a heterosexual male might be entirely negated
because of the colour of his skin. Where does the privilege of intelligence fit in? We
have seen that SES correlates with intellectual development and that if you belong to an
ethnic minority you are more likely to be part of a low SES. We have also seen that
intelligence manifests itself in a variety of forms and to varying degrees across all
socially constructed groups. Therefore if everything else was equal, we should see even
distributions of all groups in our educational institutions. We know however, that things
are not equal. Ethnic minorities are put a decisive disadvantage when it comes to factors
such as SES, which have been shown to correlate with intellectual development. They lack
all of the privileges that white skin endows. Therefore it would seem that the
disadvantages that ethnic minorities endure should translate to an under-representation
in our educational institutions. A group of Canadian researchers looked at the
representation rates of visible minorities among 1990 university graduates and the
average 1992 earnings of these graduates. The results indicate that visible minorities
comprised just over 10% of the graduates compared to their nine-and-a-half percent share
of the 1991 population. Their representation increased from 10% at the undergraduate
level to 19% at the Ph.D. level. Their earnings for 1992 were on average 101.9% of
non-minorities. These results go in the opposite direction of what could be predicted
based theories of white privilege. What I believe these results to indicate is that
intelligence is the ultimate privilege. Someone who is given the privilege of above
average intelligence is able to overcome all other disadvantages they experience as
results of socially constructed stereotypes. In the knapsack of privilege, intelligence
occupies the main compartment while other privileges fill the smaller pockets