Posted
28th June 2001
by
Carl T. Hall
BioTech Turned To PathoTech
Even though biological weapons are banned, military planners
are actively searching out new ways to bring biotechnology to
the battlefield.
A new scientific report, commissioned by the US Army, was issued
yesterday by a panel of experts. It highlights an extraordinary
range of military "opportunities" in biotech, ideas that many
experts said would be developed whether the Pentagon wants them
or not. "It's clear that biotech is going to change the way
we fight wars, and it's also clear we have to get there first
before the others get there," said study co-author Mauro Ferrari,
a professor of internal medicine and biomedical engineering
at Ohio State University.
The
list of possibilities reads like an inventory of props for a
spy thriller set sometime around 2025, which also happened to
be the "planning horizon" for the National Research Council's
16-member Board on Army Science and Technology, authors of the
new report.
Among the ideas:
-- Bioengineered tracking agents soldiers would swallow before
going into the field, which could help the Army follow troop
movements and maybe allow sensor-equipped snipers to distinguish
friend from foe.
-- Nonilluminating paints to make military vehicles invisible
to radar.
-- Wrist-top biosensors to guard against germ warfare, combined
perhaps with vaccines that could be developed rapidly in the
field and "functional food" rations laced with edible vaccines.
-- Armor as flexible as skin, tough as an abalone shell and
enhanced with "living characteristics," such as the ability
to heal itself when torn.
Even more far-out possibilities fall under the general heading
of biology-based "performance enhancement" for soldiers, including
brain implants, real-time monitoring of gene expression and
performance-enhancing drugs. Some items on the list raise ethical
problems, which were not addressed in the report, titled "Opportunities
in Biotechnology for Future Army Applications." Just what circumstances
might warrant tracking a soldier's DNA, for example, were not
spelled out in any detail.
Instead, authors of the new study identified five "high-priority"
areas where the military was told it should focus research:
"self-replicating systems for wound healing," small-scale vaccine
production, rugged computer data-storage devices, "shock therapeutics"
and genetically tuned vaccines. Robert Love, staff director
for the panel, said the military had no choice but to explore
all sorts of new ways to support troops in the field, citing
such possibilities as bioengineered field rations designed for
easy digestion. Biosensors ingested by soldiers, for example,
represent "a very important idea" for tracking troops heading
into harm's way, he said. "The digital soldier already carries
a lot of electronic equipment," he said. "This is a new dimension
of intelligence on the battlefield."
But the panel steered away from speculating as to which gadgets
might actually work and which might be better left on the drawing
board. The main point, said panel chairman Michael Ladisch,
a professor and director of a biotech research lab at Purdue
University, is that the military needs to take this stuff seriously
-- even if some of it does seem outlandish now. "There are lots
of different ways this could develop, and a lot of it is going
to develop anyhow," he said during a phone interview. "The Army
really needs to keep on top of things."
Right away, he said, that means bolstering the military's ability
to evaluate biotechnology. The idea is to equip the Pentagon
with the expertise to determine which research projects are
important to the country's defenses, and of those, which can
be left up to private industry and which need Pentagon grants
or technical help to bring to fruition. Meetings to go over
those details are planned with military brass later this year,
Ladisch said, after the Army, which is the lead service branch
for biological defense, has had a chance to digest the new report's
findings. ..
|