BIOTECHNOLOGY: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PATHOGENS

by

Joel O. Almosara, Lt Col, BSC, USAF

The Counterproliferation Papers

Future Warfare Series No. 53

USAF Counterproliferation Center

Air University

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

BIOTECHNOLOGY: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PATHOGENS

Lt Col Joel Almosara, BSC, USAF

June 2010

The Counterproliferation Papers Series was established by the USAF Counterproliferation Center 

to provide information and analysis to assist the understanding of the U.S. national security policy-makers 

and USAF officers to help them better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. 

Copies of No. 53 and previous papers in this series are available from the USAF Counterproliferation 

Center, 325 Chennault Circle, Maxwell AFB AL 36112-6427. The fax number is (334) 953-7530, phone 

(334) 953-7538.

Counterproliferation Paper No. 53

USAF Counterproliferation Center

Air University

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-6427

The Internet address for the USAF Counterproliferation Center is:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-cps.htm

[v]

Table of Contents

 

Disclaimer.............................................................................................................VII

Acknowledgements................................................................................................VIII

Author................................................................................................................... IX

I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 1

II. CONVENTIONAL BIOLOGICAL WARFARE ...................................................................... 4

III. ADVANCED BIOTECHNOLOGY: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PATHOGENS....... 8

Binary biological weapons:......................................................................................................... 9

Designer Genes and Life Forms:............................................................................................... 10

Gene Therapy as a Weapon:...................................................................................................... 13

Stealth Viruses: ......................................................................................................................... 15

Host Swapping Diseases: .......................................................................................................... 16

Designer Diseases: .................................................................................................................... 17

IV. WHAT WILL MAKE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PATHOGENS A PLAUSIBLE 

CHOICE AS A BIOWEAPON..................................................................................................... 18

V. DRAG/FRICTION POINTS................................................................................................... 22

Biological Warfare International Agreements: ......................................................................... 22

Bioethical Issues:....................................................................................................................... 23

VI. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 25

VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 27

BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................... 29

[vii]

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect 

the official policy or position of the U.S. government or the Department of Defense. In 

accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, it is not copyrighted, but is the property of the 

United States government.
[viii]

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to the Blue Horizons Study Program, USAF Center for 

Strategy and Technology which made possible the research and writing of this study. Most 

importantly, I would like to give my sincere appreciation to Col (ret) Ted C. Hailes, my advisor, 

for his valuable comments, insights, and direction on my research; and Col (ret) Dr. John P. 

Geis, Director USAF Center for Strategy and Technology for his guidance and advice as I 

researched and prepared this study. Finally, a special thank you to Dr Barry R. Schneider, 

Director USAF Counterproliferation Center (CPC) for his editorial comments and insights, as

well as, Mrs. Bonita Harris and MSgt Wesley Powell of the CPC staff for their help regarding 

formatting, editing, and publishing support.

Joel O. Almosara, Lt Col, BSC, USAF 
[ix]

The Author

Lieutenant Colonel Joel O. Almosara is the Deputy Director of the USAF Counterproliferation 

Center, Maxwell AFB, AL. He authored this publication while a student at the Air War College 

where he earned a Masters of Strategic Studies. Previously, Lt Col Almosara commanded the 374th

Aerospace Medicine Squadron and served as the Biomedical Sciences Corps Executive for the 374th

Medical Group, Yokota AB, Japan. Additionally, he has held a variety of positions including Deputy 

Squadron Commander, Bioenvironmental Engineering Flight Commander, Senior Consultant 

Hazardous Waste Management Program, and C-17 System Program Office Acquisition 

Environmental, Safety, and Occupational Health Manager. Furthermore, Lt Col Almosara has led 

multiple emergency response operations both overseas and stateside. He holds a masters degree in 

Public Administration from Northern Michigan University and Military Operational Art and Science 

from Air Staff and Command College. 

[1]

I. INTRODUCTION

“The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the 

spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile 

technology—when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic 

power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been 

caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, 

or to harm our friends—and we will oppose them with all our power.”

-President George W. Bush, 

West Point Speech, 20021

The developmental trends in biological sciences indicate there is a plethora of 

possibilities concerning the study of microorganisms and its applicability in creating the next 

biological warfare agent. Both historical and recent events show the potentially devastating 

effect of using biological warfare agents and the terror they cause among the populace. Even 

more alarming is that technological advancements in the field of biological sciences will 

transform biological warfare agents into a new classification of genetically engineered pathogens

eliciting catastrophic consequences.

2

Just as the twentieth century was the “century of chemistry and physics,” the twenty-first 

century will emerge as the “century of biology.”

Nations, groups, and individuals that have the resources, 

capabilities, and knowledge to develop this technology in the year 2035 will have the global 

arms race advantage.

3

 1 George W. Bush, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, 13.

 It will forever change how living organisms 

will be viewed because of the biotechnological revolution in altering and replacing genetic 

materials. Biotechnology has already transformed scientific applications in the fields of 

medicine, agricultural, and other biological industrial areas. The term is defined as the “fusion of 

2 James B. Petro, Theodore R. Plasse, and Jack A. Mcnulty, “Biotechnology: Impact on Biological Warfare and 

Biodefense,” (2003), 2, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/462541 (accessed October 14, 2009). 3 Richard W. Oliver, The Biotech Age: The Business of Biotech and How to Profit from It (New York: McGraw Hill, 

2003), 31.
[2]

biology and technology...it involves the use of industry recombinant DNA (deoxyribonucleic 

acid), cell fusion, and new bioprocessing techniques,”4 such as human genome sequencing. 

Human genome sequencing was first considered in the mid 80s. In 1988, the Department of 

Energy and the National Institute of Health funded a Human Genome Project (HGP), a 15-year 

project with a target completion date of 2005. With the rapid technological advancement and 

international participation, the project was completed in 2003.5

 Since then the number of human 

gene manipulations and new findings of significance to the advancement of medicine have 

soared. Biotechnological-related patents have also increased tenfold in 24 years and continue

growing at an exponential rate.6

The “bright side” of advancements in biotechnology is offering great promise in

improving human health, combating diseases, and promoting a better quality of life. But, for 

every “bright side” there is an opposing “dark side.” Biotechnology, when used maliciously or 

negligently, can destroy human life.

 

7

Imagine, a suicide bomber going through the airport security system. With sensors 

employed in terminals, chances are this suicide bomber has a good chance of being detected and 

detained. Now, imagine the same individual going through the airport security system but 

instead of having a bomb he was injected with a genetically engineered virus capable of 

transmitting a highly virulent disease that could be triggered at a time chosen by the perpetrator. 

 Advanced biotechnology, in particular genetically 

engineered pathogens such as viruses, and bacteria, could become a potential choice for use as

biological warfare agents. 

 4 Biotechnology, http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2467 (accessed 16 Nov 2009). 5 Francis S. Collins and others, eds. “The Human Genome Project: Lessons from Large-Scale Biology,” Science 

Magazine Vol 300 (2003), 286-288, http://www.sciencemag.org (accessed Nov 16, 2009). 6 Oliver, 59-60 7 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, “Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of The Life 

Sciences” (Washington, DC: The National Academic Press, 2006), 15.
[3]

The chances of this person getting through without being detected would arguably be very high. 

By the time he would have started showing signs and symptoms of an illness, he would already 

have infected people around him. The snowball effect of infection would become an imminent 

public health disaster. This scenario is notional but is disconcerting to say the least. Knowledge 

that there is no inspection process or detection equipment in our airports to detect this type of 

threat can easily encourage radical groups or individuals to employ such a deadly weapon. It is 

imperative to develop capabilities to deter such attacks before they strike the homeland using 

these heinous weapons. 

Will advancements in biotechnology enable genetically engineered pathogens to become 

a weapon of choice for nations, groups, and/or individuals in 2035? In presenting the argument, 

a look into conventional biological warfare agents is necessary before focusing on advanced 

systems in determining the plausible role and effects of genetically engineered pathogens in the 

future. Characteristics of each pathogen will be discussed to determine the threats and 

challenges they may present by the year 2035. Rogue states, radical groups, and individuals, 

given the opportunity to employ biological weapons, will most likely use it to inflict harm and 

terror on the United States and its allies. Therefore, knowing what is to come will allow the 

United States to prepare for and deter the use of these nefarious weapons. 
[4]

II. CONVENTIONAL BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

"Armed with a single vial of a biological agent, small groups of fanatics, or failing states, could 

gain the power to threaten great nations, threaten the world peace. America, and the entire 

civilized world, will face this threat for decades to come. We must confront the danger with open 

eyes, and unbending purpose."

President George W. Bush, February 11, 20048

To comprehend the nature of Biological Warfare (BW) it is important to be familiar with

the basic concepts and capabilities that underscore this threat. BW is the premeditated 

employment of harmful microorganisms to attack a target population that can either cause 

incapacitation or death.9

Bacteria are microscopic single-celled organisms with varying sizes and shapes ranging

from spherical cells (cocci) to rod-shaped organisms (bacilli). This single-celled living organism 

contains the genetic material DNA, cytoplasm, and a cell membrane. Though most bacteria are 

harmless, some are pathogens that can cause disease in humans and animals by means of 

invading the host tissue or by producing poisons (toxins).

 The microorganisms that serve as BW agents are bacteria, viruses, and 

toxins, and are naturally-occurring pathogens. The physical characteristics and properties of 

these pathogens inherently make them viable offensive biological weapons. 

10

 8 President George W. Bush, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive-10: Biodefense for the 21st Century,” 

Some bacteria can rapidly increase 

in numbers and under the right conditions are able to multiply more than a million fold in less 

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/hspd-10.html, (accessed 5 December 2009). 9 William E. King IV, Biological Warfare: Are U.S. Armed Forces Ready? (VA: Association of the U.S. Army, 1999), 3. 

10 Malcolm Dando, Bioterror and Biowarfare (Oxford: Oneworld, 2006), 65-66.
[5]

than four hours. The human body is the ideal environment for bacteria to regenerate.

11 Bacillus 

anthracis (anthrax), Yersinia pestis (plague), Francisella tularensis (tularemia), Brucella sp.

(brucellosis), and Coxiella burnetti (Q fever), are all bacterial agents that reproduce quickly in 

the human body.

12

Viruses are parasitic in nature; they can only survive and multiply if they are fused with 

the cells of a live host. The hosts can be humans, animals, plants, or bacteria. Viruses are the 

simplest microorganisms; they are much smaller than bacteria and consist of a protein coat 

containing the genetic material in the form of RNA (ribonucleic acid) or DNA. Each virus 

requires its own unique type of host cell for multiplication and once the interaction between the 

cell and virus occurs, it can infect all other cells. Conventional viral agents that have the ability 

to shut down the human body include smallpox, influenza, yellow fever, encephalitis (various), 

dengue fever, chikungunga, Rift Valley fever, and hemorrhagic fevers (Ebola, Marburg, 

Lassa).13

Toxins are harmful substances produced by animals, plants and microbes. Though they 

are non-infectious because they cannot be transferred through secretions or skin contact, toxins 

can debilitate the human body and possibly lead to death.

Yet another group in the potentially dangerous pathogen arsenal is toxins.

14

 11 Lt Col Tim Schultz, Biopolitik: A Practical Assessment of Future Biowarfare (Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 

2004), 8.

Some naturally occurring toxins 

include the following: botulinum toxin, staphylococcus enterotoxin, ricin toxin, clostridium 

12 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, Giving Full Measure to Countemeasures (Washington, DC: 

The National Academy Press, 2004), 108.

13 Steven M. Block, Living Nightmares: Biological Threats Enabled by Molecular Biology, in The New Terror: Facing 

The Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons. Eds. Sidney D. Drell, Abraham D. Sofaer, and George D. Wilson, 

(Hoover Institution Press: Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1999), 44.

14 Dando, Bioterror and Biowarfare, 66.
[6]

perfringes, mycotoxins, aflatoxin, and shigella toxin.

15

Historical events reveal many examples of biological weapons usage. In 300 BC, the 

Greeks, Romans and Persians contaminated their enemies’ water supply with dead animal 

carcasses.

 These biological agents have been used

in warfare almost from the beginning of time. 

16 In 400 BC, the Scythian archers infected their arrows by dipping them in 

decomposed bodies. In the 14th century AD, the Tartar forces catapulted plague-infected corpses 

in the siege of Kaffa. Again in 1710, the Russians employed the same tactics of catapulting 

plague-infected cadavers against Swedish forces.

17 During the French-Indian War in the 18th 

century AD, British forces provided blankets contaminated with smallpox to the Native 

Americans. Finally, in 1939-42, the Japanese used massive BW agent attacks in China including 

bombing them with masses of fleas carrying the bubonic plague.

18

Analysis of the destructive effect of conventional biological weapons is further supported 

by reports from the United Nations and the Office of Technology and Assessments. The United 

Nations Secretary General generated a report on 

 

Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) 

Weapons and the Effects of Their Possible Use

 15 Block, 44.

, in the 1969 assessment of the Biological and 

Toxin Weapons Convention. The results showed that using a single bomber and with the right 

weather conditions on an unprotected population, a 10 ton biological agent dispersed in the 

environment could affect an area equal to 100,000 km2 (roughly the size of the state of Indiana) 

as compared to a megaton of nuclear load which affected 300 km2 only (approximately over half 

16 British Medical Association, Biotechnology Weapons and Humanity (United Kingdom: Harwood Academic 

Publishers, 1999), 10. 17 King IV, Biological, 5. 18 Christian Enemark, Biological Weapons: An Overview of Threats and Responses (Canberra: The Australian 

National University, 2003), 9.
[7]

the size of the District of Columbia).

19

First, an attack with a missile delivered on an overcast day or night, with a 

moderate wind, on to a city with 3,000 to 10,000 unprotected people per km2. 

The authors stated that 300 kg of Sarin nerve gas could kill between 60 and 200 

people in an area of 0.22 km2. 30 kg of anthrax spores spread out in a cigar-shape 

across the city from the missile warhead could kill 30,000 to 100,000 in an area of 

10 km2

. For a 12.5-kt nuclear weapon there would be a circular area of 

destruction of 7.8 km2 in which 23,000 to 80,000 people could be killed. In the 

second scenario, 100 kg of anthrax spores were released by an aircraft along a line 

to the windward side of Washington, DC. On a clear sunny day with a light 

breeze, 46 km2 would be affected and 130-460,000 people could die. On an 

overcast day or night with a moderate wind, 140 km2 would be affected and 420-

000 to 1,400,000 people could die. On a clear, calm night an area of 300 km2

would be affected and between 1 and 3 million people could die.

 Other publicly-available information also showed similar 

results. The Office of Technology Assessment in 1993 released a report that showed two 

hypothetical scenarios using biological weapons: 

20

Though the results above were only estimates of probable effects, it can be assumed that 

these conventional biological weapons can produce massive amounts of destruction. But, with 

the advancement of biotechnology, the worst devastation may be yet to come using the new 

generation of biological warfare agents known as genetically engineered pathogens. 

 19 Secretary General (1969) ”Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons and the Effects of their Possible 

Use,” in Bioterror and Biowarfare, ed. Malcolm Dando (Oxford: Oneworld, 2006), 111.

20 Malcolm Dando, Biological Warfare in the 21st Century (London, UK: Brassey’s, 1994), 9.
[8]

III. ADVANCED BIOTECHNOLOGY: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PATHOGENS

“’Plants’ with ‘leaves’ no more efficient than today’s solar cells could outcompete real plants, 

crowding the biosphere with an inedible foliage. Tough omnivorous ‘bacteria’ could outcompete real bacteria: They could spread like blowing pollen, replicated swiftly, and reduce the 

biosphere to dust in a matter of days. Dangerous replicators could easily be too tough, small, 

and rapidly spreading to stop—at least if we make no preparation. We have trouble enough

controlling viruses and fruit flies.”

-Eric Drexler21

Biotechnology promises great benefits for humanity but if used malevolently could cause 

mass destruction. The National Intelligence Council stated in its study, Mapping the Global 

Future: 2020, that, “Major advances in the biological sciences...probably will accelerate the pace 

of BW agent development, increasing the potential for agents that are more difficult to detect or 

to defend against. Through 2020 some countries will continue to try to develop chemical agents 

designed to circumvent the chemical weapons regime.”22

In 1997, a study was conducted to identify future threats and uses of advanced biological 

warfare agents. The JASON group, composed of academic scientists, served as technical 

 Advances in biotechnology have 

paved the way allowing the modification of naturally occurring pathogens into a new generation 

of genetically engineered pathogens. These new pathogens could then be potentially developed 

into extremely deadly biological agents that could be untreatable and uncontrollable making 

them more dangerous than conventional biological weapons. 

 21 Ray Kurzweil, The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (New York: Penguin Books, 2005), 397. 22 National Intelligence Council, Mapping the Global Future, Report of the National Intelligence Council’s Project, 

NIC-2004-13, December 2004, 100-101, http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf, (accessed 10 Dec 09).
[9]

advisers to the U. S. government.23 Their study generated six broad classes of genetically 

engineered pathogens that could pose serious threats to society. These include but are not 

limited to binary biological weapons, designer genes, gene therapy as a weapon, stealth viruses, 

host-swapping diseases, and designer diseases. 24 Some of these genetically engineered 

pathogens, according to historical records, have already been produced and stockpiled. Each of 

the six classes will be analyzed in the light of its history and likelihood of its possible future use. 

Binary biological weapons: This bioweapon is made up of a two-component system with 

independent elements that are safe to handle separately but when mixed together form a lethal 

combination. This system consists of a virus and helper virus, or bacterial virulence plasmid. 

Hepatitis D is an example of a virus and B as the helper virus; a combination of both produces 

severe infection to the host. “Hepatitis D needs to infect cells simultaneously with the unrelated 

virus hepatitis B; both are primarily transmitted through sexual contact or by contaminated blood 

or needles. The D virus takes advantage of the proteins expressed by the larger B virus, and 

greatly increases the severity of disease caused by hepatitis B. Infection by hepatitis D alone is 

not possible.”25 Examples of bacterial virulence plasmids are the plague (Yersinia pestis), 

anthrax (Bacillus anthracis), dysentery (Shigella dysenteria), and E. coli (Escherichia coli).

26

State of the Bioweapon: Binary biological weapons are already in existence. The 

process of generating this potential bioweapon has been decoded as revealed by a former Soviet 

Union defector. In 1992, a defector from the former Soviet Union code-named “Temple 

 

 23 Michael J. Ainscough, “Next Generation Bioweapons: Genetic Engineering and Biological warfare,” in The 

Gathering Biological Warfare Storm, eds. Jim A. Davis and Barry R. Schneider (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 

2004), 177.

24 Block, 51. 25 Ibid., 53-54. 26 Ibid., 54.
[10]

Fortune,” described his experience with binary biological weapons. He revealed that the former 

Soviet Union secretly continued research on a “new and improved super-plague” (Yersinia 

pestis) despite President Yeltsin’s order to end their offensive biological warfare program. The 

defector explained that the super-plague “would not only be more resistant to multiple antibiotics 

but it would be made with a special new process...In its initial form, the plague would not be 

virulent – so it would be safe to handle and store...Russian Scientists had found a way to convert 

this non-toxic plague back into a deadly, antibiotic-resistant form as soon as it was needed for 

weaponization.”27

It could also be argued that nations who have the equipment, material, resources, and 

knowledge could very easily produce these genetically engineered pathogens. Binary biological 

weapons are good candidates for future use because of their benign properties making them easy 

to store and handle. Because the components are not independently dangerous or hazardous they 

can easily be transported requiring less signatures for manufacturers. This also makes tracking 

more difficult. 

 Because of its properties and ability to be stored in large volumes for a long 

period without causing any harm, it is presumed that Russia still maintains this bioweapon. 

Future Application: The binary biological weapons processes are already known and

are here to stay. In the wrong hands, bioweapons are an impending and dangerous threat.

Designer Genes and Life Forms: The successful completion of the human genome project 

paved the way to understanding the nature and content of the complex genetic information that 

could be used to create new biological life forms. There are about 599 viruses, 205 naturally 

occurring plasmids, 31 bacteria, 1 fungus, 2 animals, and 1 plant genomic sequence known to 

 27 Tom Mangold and Jeff Goldberg, Plague Wars: The Terrifying Reality of Biological Warfare (New York: St. 

Martin’s Press, 1999), 163-164.
[11]

date.28 This wealth of information regarding human genomes could expand the life forms using 

synthetic genes, synthetic viruses, and synthetic organisms.29

Using the technique called recombinant DNA technology (gene splicing), a single gene is 

inserted in an organism to alter its genetic properties. An example is the splicing of genes to 

produce insulin for diabetics. Genes responsible for generating insulin are spliced into plasmid 

DNA that can then infect bacteria. The infected bacteria will then multiply and the product is a 

large amount of insulin for medicinal purposes.

 The designer genes have been one 

of the greatest breakthroughs in the field of biotechnology. 

30

As biotechnology advances and techniques are refined, scientists are exploring the 

complex genetic information to improve human life and perhaps create a new form of organisms. 

Another technique for gene therapy is the DNA shuffling. 

Despite the benefits of this biotechnology, the 

perils cannot be overlooked because genes can be programmed into an infectious state that could

easily be transformed into a bioweapon. 

DNA shuffling—also known as multigene shuffling, gene shuffling, and directed 

in vitro molecular evolution—has allowed scientists to greatly improve the 

efficiency with which a wide diversity of genetic sequences can be derived. A 

quantum leap in the ability to generate new DNA sequences...can be used to 

produce large libraries of DNA that can then be subjected to screening or 

selection for a range of desired traits, such as improved protein function and /or 

greater protein production.

31

 28 International Human Genome Consortium, Initial sequencing and analysis of the Human Genome, Nature, Vol 

409, (15 Feb 2001), 860, 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/pdf/409860a0.pdf. (accessed 16 

Nov 2009). 29 Block, 56-60.

30 The Gene School, “Application of Gene Splicing,” http://library.thinkquest.org/19037/therapy2.html (Accessed 

21 Jan 2010).

31 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, “Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of The Life 

Sciences” , 146.
[12]

Using this method there was an observable increase in antibiotics production generated from 

bacteria.32

State of the Bioweapon: Designer genes could become the most lethal form of 

bioweapon of the future. Nations that are interested in developing lethal weapons can openly use 

the genomic sequence databases to choose the genes they want to design. One assessment noted, 

“The ever-expanding microbial genome databases now provide a parts list of all potential genes 

involved in pathogenicity and virulence, adhesion and colonization of host cells, immuneresponse evasion and antibiotic resistance, from which to pick and choose the most lethal 

combinations.”

 This biotechnology undoubtedly offers great opportunities for medical purposes, but 

it could also have a significant impact in the production of genetically engineered pathogens 

resistant to drugs or vaccines, and increase virulence well-suited for bioweapons. 

33

Imagine using synthetic viruses to recreate the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918 that killed 

20 million people; the worst ever in history.

 With this wealth of information it would be possible to create diseases using 

synthetic viruses that could wipe out an entire population. 

34

 32 Y.Z. Zhang, et al. 2002. Genome Shuffling leads to rapid phenotypic improvement in bacteria in Institute of 

Medicine and National Research Council, “Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of The Life Sciences” 

(Washington, DC: The National Academic Press, 2006), 147.

 The scientific and technological breakthroughs in 

genetically engineered pathogens have already changed the future outlook of the biological 

weapons and its threat. In October 2004, the Spanish Flu strain of 1918 was partially 

reconstructed by researchers at the University of Wisconsin using reverse engineering 

techniques. The influenza A virus was fully sequenced and characterized the following year. 

Experts predicted that, “Although, the knowledge, facilities, and ingenuity to carry this sort of 

33 C.M. Fraser and D.R. Dando. 2001. Genomics and future biological weapons: The need for preventive action by 

the biomedical community. Nature Genetics 29(3): 253-256, in Institute of Medicine and National Research 

Council: Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences (Washington, DC: the National Academies 

Press, 2006), 62-63. 34 Dando, Bioterror and Biowarfare, 106.
[13]

experiment are beyond the abilities of most non-experts at this time, this situation is likely to 

change over the next 5 to 10 years”.35 Though this experiment was conducted with the intent to 

prevent re-emergence of the devastating influenza pandemic,36

Future Application: This is the bioweapon to watch for in the next 25 years. This 

technology is highly complex and only nations or groups that have biotechnological capabilities 

will be able to develop these genetically engineered pathogens. Advancements will continue to 

increase as the scientific world keeps finding new and innovative ways to manipulate human 

genetics.

in the wrong hands it would offer 

potential offensive bioweapons capabilities.

Gene Therapy as a Weapon: Gene therapy might just be the silver bullet for the treatment of 

human genetic diseases. This process involves replacing a bad gene with a good gene to 

normalize the condition of the recipient. Transfer of the “healthy” gene requires a vector to 

reach its target. Vectors commonly used are “viruses that have been genetically altered to carry 

normal human DNA” such as “retroviruses, adenoviruses, adeno-associated viruses, and herpes 

simplex viruses.” 37 There are two classes of gene therapy: germline (reproductive) and somatic 

cell (therapeutic). The DNA changes in a germline cell give it the capability to correct a bad 

gene allowing this new fix to be passed on through generations. Somatic cell gene therapy is 

different in that it can only affect the individual who received it.38

 35 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, “Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of The Life 

Sciences” , 48.

36 Ibid., 64. 37 Ibid., 191-192. 38 Block, 60-63.
[14]

State of the Bioweapon: Gene therapy has already been used in both animal research 

and human clinical trials. Numerous examples of successful gene therapy application have been 

published and shown to have promising results; University of Michigan and Kansai Medical 

University, Japan, reported that “they had used gene therapy to restore hearing in mature deaf 

animals.”39 According to the study, “gene therapy can be used to regenerate functional hair 

cells, which are necessary to restore hearing, by using an adenovector to deliver the ‘healthy’ 

gene into nonsensory cells that reside in the deaf cochlea...upon delivery, hearing is substantially 

improved.”40 Another example of this technology was replacing a mutant gene that prevents 

production of an enzyme called “adenosine deaminase (ADA).” Blood was extracted, treated 

and reinjected into the person’s system. According to the report, this therapy was relatively 

successful; unfortunately other cases using gene therapy were not as successful.41

Another significant gene therapy outcome was the mousepox virus experiment in 

Australia. Researchers inadvertently developed a lethal mousepox virus while attempting to 

prevent the plague, within the mice population. This genetically altered virus attacked the 

immune systems of the experimental mice; it killed all of them. Researchers also found that 

sixty percent of those mice previously vaccinated died within days of exposure.

 Though the 

progress of gene therapy is significant, there are more questions to answer and techniques to 

refine before this therapy becomes a viable treatment for many types of diseases.

42

 39 Izumikawa, M. et al. 2005 Auditory hair cell replacement and Hearing improvement by Atoh1 gene therapyin 

deaf mammals in Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, “Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future 

of The Life Sciences”, 192.

 Although this 

was unintentionally created, if the same modified virus was added to smallpox, it could present 

the same lethality for humans. 

40 Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, “Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of The Life 

Sciences”, 192.

41 Lisa Yount, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, 3rd ed (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2008), 49. 42 Dando, Bioterror and Biowarfare, 103.
[15]

Future Application: Gene therapy is expected to gain in popularity. It will continue to 

be improved upon and could unquestionably be chosen as a bioweapon. The rapid growth in 

biotechnology could trigger more opportunities to find new ways to fight diseases or create new 

ones. Nations who are equipped to handle biotechnology are likely to consider gene therapy a 

viable bioweapon. Groups or individuals without the resources or funding will find it difficult to 

produce this bioweapon.

Stealth Viruses: The basic concept of this potential bioweapon is to “produce a tightly 

regulated, cryptic viral infection that can enter and spread in human cells using vectors” (similar 

to the gene therapy) and then stay dormant for a period of time until triggered by an internal or 

external signal. The signal then could stimulate the virus to cause severe damage to the system. 

Stealth viruses could also be tailored to secretly infect a targeted population for an extended 

period using the threat of activation to blackmail the target.43

State of the Bioweapon: Stealth viruses just like the gene therapy, require a vector to be 

inserted in the body and lay dormant until a trigger mechanism is activated either internally or 

externally. Imagine having a cancer causing virus enter a human cell and lay dormant until an 

external signal triggers the disease. When the signal gets activated the cells become abnormal 

and could rapidly generate abnormal cell growth leading to a tumor and ultimately, death. Now, 

apply this concept to a population where an HIV virus gets disseminated within a target 

population. At a specific time chosen by the perpetrator, the signal would be triggered to harm 

an entire population all at once. Although this bioweapon is futuristic it is not improbable and 

deserves to be examined.

 

 43 Block, 63-65.
[16]

Future Application: Stealth viruses could become a potential bioweapon in the year 

2035. There is much more to learn about the timing of the triggering mechanism to make this a 

feasible bioweapon. However, with the rapid rise in biotechnology, nations who have the 

capabilities to conduct research and development could certainly attain that level of knowledge. 

It would be highly unlikely to see groups or individuals possessing this bioweapon. 

Host Swapping Diseases:44 Most viruses do not cause disease and are mainly considered 

parasites. They exist in evolutionary “equilibrium” with their host ranges, but if the 

“equilibrium” is disrupted, two things could happen; either the viruses become virulent or 

benign. Disruption of “equilibrium” occurs when a virus jumps out of its host range and 

transfers to a different host species where it could create another virus by mutating or picking up 

other genes by mistake. Animal viruses usually reside naturally in a “reservoir” or certain 

animal species and cause little to no damage to its host. Eastern equine encephalitis uses water 

fowl for its reservoir, rodents carry hantavirus, bats are the hosts for Ebola virus, and 

chimpanzees for the AIDS virus. When these viruses move out of their natural host reservoirs 

they eventually produce extremely lethal pathogens.45

State of the Bioweapon: The host swapping diseases are already an emerging biological 

warfare threat. They are also classified by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention as a 

Category A, meaning high-priority agent.46

Future Application: It could be argued that host swapping diseases as a bioweapon are

already in existence. Nations, groups, and individuals could have fairly easy access to this 

 44 Block, 65-68. 45 Ibid., 65-68. 46 CDC, http://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist-category.asp, (accessed 24 November 2009).
[17]

bioweapon. With the rapid increase in biotechnology and with its dual-use nature, these 

genetically engineered pathogens can be extremely debilitating to a populace. 

Designer Diseases: The knowledge of cellular and molecular biology has progressed nearly to a 

point where it may be possible to conceptually design a disease first and then create the pathogen 

to produce the desired effect of that disease. These designer diseases might work by attacking 

the immune system to affect the cells’ natural ability to fight diseases (i.e., HIV virus causes 

AIDS), or it might reactivate dormant genes to cause destruction of cells (spread of cancer), or 

simply instruct cells to commit suicide and die (programmed cell death or “apoptosis”). 

Apoptosis can be useful in curing diseases like cancer. But, it can also be used to activate “death 

pathways” that could kill all cells at once.47

State of the Bioweapon: The designer diseases are certainly a futuristic bioweapon but 

by no means inconceivable. Imagine designing a disease that could wipe out the whole 

population or a certain ethnic group? These bioweapons demand more investigation and 

research to fully understand their nature, properties, and potential harm.

Future Applications: Designer diseases could be a viable candidate as a potential 

bioweapon in 2035. These bioweapons deserve to be further evaluated for future research. 

Nations who have the resources and capabilities to conduct research and development could 

certainly attain the knowledge to make this bioweapon a reality. It would be highly unlikely to 

see groups or individuals possessing this bioweapon. 

 47 Block, 68-71.
[18]

IV. WHAT WILL MAKE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PATHOGENS A 

PLAUSIBLE CHOICE AS A BIOWEAPON

“Genetic engineering for biological agents? There’d be no protection. These are the weapons 

of the future and the future is coming closer and closer”

William Cohen, US Secretary of Defense, 199848

“It’s true that the century so far has seen much less bloodshed. But the other side of the 

coin is that the technologies are so much more powerful today...”49 Biotechnology, particularly 

genetically engineered pathogens in the next 25 years, will be more attractive to individuals, 

groups, and nations because of the high degree of ease, expertise, cost, and widespread 

information. The six broad classes of genetically engineered pathogens discussed in this report,

although not meant to be all-inclusive, are already in existence or approaching the spectrum of

possibilities in which nations, groups, and individuals could potentially employ them as a 

weapon of choice. “Biotechnology is moving so fast that textbooks are obsolete before they go 

to press.”50

 48 William Cohen Interview, May 1998, in Tom Mangold and Jeff Goldberg, Plague Wars: The Terrifying Reality of 

Biological Warfare (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 372.

 Knowing what is out in the public domain and the ease of getting the material,

equipment and recipes could be an incentive to those groups and individuals who want to 

maliciously employ bioweapons. As it stands today, easy to follow lesson plans (Figure 1) for 

DNA extractions with a complete materials list and recipes are widely available on the internet. 

Additionally, a “terrorist cookbook” as shown in Figure 2, contains recipes for making 

explosives using household chemicals. These are just a minute sample of the valuable 

49 Joel Garreau, Radical Evolution (New York: Broadway Books, 2005), 100. 50 Charles Piller and Keith R. Yamamoto, Gene Wars (New York: Beech Tree Books, 1988), 109.
[19]

information and examples of how easily materials and equipment can be accessed through the

internet.

 

 Figure 1. Materials List For DNA Extraction51

 51 University of Arizona, “General Biology Lesson Plans,” 

http://biology.arizona.edu/sciconn/lessons2/Vuturo/vuturo/mat_list.htm. (accessed 21 Jan 2010).
[20]

 

 Figure 2. Terrorist Handbook Website52

The accessibility of biotechnological information in the public domain is worrisome but this is

just a preview of what is to come in the future. Global Trends 2025 states that, “For those 

terrorist groups active in 2025, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place 

some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. The globalization of

biotechnology industries is spreading expertise and capabilities and increasing the accessibility 

of biological pathogens suitable for disruptive attacks.”53

Rogue nations would have more liberty to work with genetically engineered pathogens 

because of their dual-use nature. They could easily carry out a clandestine biological warfare 

program in the name of medical science without being detected. Unlike the chemical and 

nuclear weapons programs, a biological warfare program has no unambiguous signatures to 

 52 Anarchist Cookbook, http://www.licensed4fun.com/anarchist1.htm, (accessed 21 Jan 2010). 53 National Intelligence Council, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, NIC 2008-003, Nov 2008, 70. 

http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf. (accessed 10 Dec 2009).
[21]

differentiate its legitimacy for conducting biotechnology research vis-à-vis research for offensive 

military biological weapons.54 Additionally, the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention 

lacks effective verification provisions to check the parties’ compliance with the program—as 

exemplified by the former Soviet Union who carried out a massive illegal offensive biological 

warfare program.55

Biological warfare agents are mostly invisible to the human eye and naturally present in 

the environment. One of the advantages of using biological warfare could be “an optimal death 

to cost ratio; they are virtually undetectable; and they offer the potential for mass panic.”56 This 

is a positive motivation for nations, groups, and individuals to pursue genetically engineered 

pathogens as a weapon of choice. Biological warfare attacks may resemble a natural disease

outbreak phenomenon and it would be very difficult to trace back to the source, thereby 

discounting the perpetrator’s actions. “Historically, attributing blame for biological warfare use 

has been fraught with controversy and may take a very long time. Only in 2002, for example, 

did a court in Japan formally acknowledge the Imperial Japanese Army’s deliberate infection of 

Chinese prisoners with bubonic plague in 1940-42.”57

 54 Lt Col Rex R. Kiziah, Assessment of the Emerging Biocruise Threat, Counterproliferation Paper No. 6 (Maxwell 

AFB, AL: Air University Press, 2000), 15-17.

 Finally, the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic 

killed at least 20 million people worldwide. Though, in this case it was a natural pandemic, what 

if a nation, group or individual could develop genetically engineered pathogens that could yield 

the same or higher catastrophic loss of life on their enemy? “That, in essence, is the potential 

55 Dando, Bioterror and Biowarfare, 6. 56 Enemark, 10. 57 Anne L. Clunan, Introduction: Identifying Biological Agents, Characterizing Events, and Attributing Blame in 

Terrorism, War or Disease, eds. Anne L. Clunan, Peter R. Lavoy, and Susan B. Martin (Stanford, CA: Stanford 

University Press, 2008), 1. 
[22]

effect of applying genetic engineering for biological warfare”58

V. DRAG/FRICTION POINTS

and a compelling reason to 

choose genetically engineered pathogens as a weapon of choice.

I’m out on the border, I’m walkin’ the line...Don’t you tell me ‘bout your law and order...I’m 

try’n’ to change this water to wine.

—Eagles , “On the Border”59

Genetically engineered pathogens are here to stay and could be used as potential 

bioweapons. The fact is that there is always a consequence for every action taken and although 

biological weapons seem, on the surface, to be an easy answer, the repercussions can even be 

devastating to the user. This is why it has not been more universally applied. This chapter will 

address the treaties as well as the moral and ethical issues that cause drag and friction in using 

genetically engineered pathogens as bioweapons.

Biological Warfare International Agreements: Use of biological weapons knows no 

boundaries. A legally binding treaty that outlaws biological arms is the Biological Weapons 

Convention (BWC) signed in 1972 and entered into force in 1975. Currently it has 155 statesparties and 16 signatory states.60

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstances to develop, 

produce, stockpile or otherwise, or retain:

 Article 1 of the Biological Weapons Convention states: 

(1) Microbial or other biological agents or toxins, whatever their origin or method of 

production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, 

protective, or other peaceful purpose.

 58 Ainscough, 165. 59 Garreau, 275. 60 Arms Control Association, The Biological Weapons Convention at a Glance, 2006, 

http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2472, (accessed 13 Dec 2009).
[23]

(2) Weapons, equipment, or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for 

hostile purposes or in armed conflict.61

The difficulties and challenges raised by this treaty are compliance issues. The Arms Control 

Association reports, “The convention has been flagrantly violated in the past...the U.S. 

government listed, in addition to Russia, BWC states-parties China, Iran, and North Korea, as 

well as BWC signatory Syria, as possessing offensive biological weapons in violation of the 

treaty.”62 Additionally, the absence of an effective verification provision to ensure the statesparties are abiding with the treaty has raised “real concern over proliferation because of the dualuse nature of the technology, a crucial element in the web of policies required to prevent 

proliferation of biological weapons capabilities has been left extremely weak.”63 To compound 

the problem even more, in 2001 the US rejected the draft protocol that would require states to 

submit declarations of treaty-relevant facilities and activities to an international body.

64

Bioethical Issues: Bioethical issues may be a concern for state actors who believe in human 

rights, but what about the rogue states? Rapid advancement in biotechnology offers many 

advantages for humanity but the concept of manipulating the fragile human cell to form a life is 

particularly disconcerting. Biotechnology “will create new ethical and moral issues that touch 

 This 

caused friction between the states-parties and discussions concerning verification measures 

remain unclear. Rogue nations who become involved with dual-use technology could produce 

offensive biological warfare agents with little risk of being tracked. They could also easily be 

engaged in clandestine proliferation of genetically engineered pathogens as a bioweapon. 

 61 Milton Leitenburg, Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War 

College Press, 2005), 71.

62 Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2472 63 Dando, Bioterror and Biowarfare, 6-7. 64 Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2472
[24]

the very definition of life, such as the ability to predetermine not only the sex but also the health 

and personality characteristics of our children.”65 In the United States the rise in 

biotechnological industries has also triggered the rise in concern for ethical standards. In 1995, 

President Clinton formed the National Bioethics Advisory Commission to address ethical issues 

of biotechnology. President Bush, followed suit, but introduced a more conservative approach.66

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was particularly concerned with 

the potential use of biological agents and believes they merit reflection at all levels of society. 

Testimonies are provided by governments, UN agencies, scientific circles, medical associations 

and industry to identify existing and emerging capacities for misuse of biological warfare agents.

The ICRC in February 1918, made an impassioned appeal, describing warfare poison as “a 

barbaric invention which science is bringing to perfection...and protesting...with all the force at 

[its] command against such warfare...” The appeal resonated among the international

community that States adopt the 1925 Geneva Protocol, banning use of poison gas and 

bacteriological weapons.

 

Government intervention and peoples’ ethical values will undeniably slow down biotechnology 

research and development programs.

67

 65 Oliver, 21. 

Bioethical concerns for nations who believe in the rights and values 

of their citizens will always have friction when proceeding to adopt a complex biotechnology 

that touches life itself. The danger is that those nations that are not constrained by such ethical 

considerations have an open playing field within which to work. If they can create weapons in 

66 Oliver, 231. 67 Dando, Bioterror and Biowarfare, 176-177. However, although employment of BW weapon is illegal under the 

1925 Geneva Protocol, the research, production and stockpiling of such weapons was not prohibited by the 

Protocol. This oversight over corrected by the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), signed in 1972 and entered 

into force in 1975, but this treaty has no verification procedures.
[25]

areas that most other nations are not even allowed to look at, it will give them a potential 

asymmetric advantage.

VI. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

The “genie” is already out of the bottle. The fast pace of biotechnology has led to new 

findings in the world of genetic engineering. The Human Genome Project has opened more 

avenues among industrial countries and the scientific world to explore the phenomenon of living 

organisms. These stunning discoveries have led to research into the characteristics and causes of 

diseases through a consortium of international scientists whose goal is to discover the more 

complex attributes of human genomes. The knowledge and the capability to generate new forms 

of organisms are here to stay and man’s imagination is the only limit.

Biotechnology, with its dual-use nature, could be among the most inspiring life-giving

discoveries of the 21st century, but it could also become the world’s most lethal weapon if used 

malevolently. The threat of genetically engineered pathogens will dominate the future of 

biological warfare. It has been historically documented that conventional biological weapons 

have been used overtly and covertly. Hence, rogue nations, groups, and individual actors, given 

the opportunity to use these highly lethal bioweapons, will likely mount an attack to fight off the 

great powers or to dominate regional adversaries. Their threatened use can also be helpful in 

deterring attacks by rivals.

Conventional biological weapons, as deadly as they are, might be insignificant compared 

with the lethal effects of genetically engineered pathogens as biological warfare agents. The 
[26]

table below summarizes the six classes of genetically engineered pathogens and whether nations, 

groups, or individuals could potentially use these bioweapons.

Engineered Pathogens Nations Groups Individuals

Binary biological weapons X X X

Designer genes X X

Gene therapy as a weapon X

Stealth viruses X

Host-swapping diseases X X X

Designer diseases X

Table 1: Summary of potential genetically engineered pathogen users

The six classes of genetically engineered pathogens discussed in this paper are binary 

biological weapons, designer genes, gene therapy as a weapon, stealth viruses, host swapping 

diseases, and designer diseases. All six bioweapon categories could potentially be used or 

produced by nations. However, only three of these categories could arguably be used by groups

and two by individual actors. Several reasons why genetically engineered pathogens could 

become a weapon of choice for nations, groups, and individuals are as follows: 1) genetically 

engineered pathogens are relatively cheaper to develop than nuclear weapons, 2) science and 

technology are becoming more sophisticated and transparent, 3) as the world becomes flatter, 

accessibility to materials and information are within reach, 4) use of advanced bioweapons could 
[27]

have desired long lasting effects, 5) means of disseminating genetically engineered pathogens 

could be as simple as an infectious person coming in contact with external trigger points, 6) the

dual-use nature of biotechnology means absence of agent signatures and less red tape for 

regulatory tracking purposes, and 7) the identity of attackers can be concealed as biological 

weapons can be used that do not result in immediate or discernable effects, allowing a 

clandestine attack and a withdrawal before the disease manifests itself.

For individual actors who are motivated to spread their radical ideologies and would 

execute whatever is necessary to achieve their goals, the use of these advanced bioweapons

could potentially deliver their message, sometimes without penalty if the identity of the attacker 

is concealed. Individual actors could easily pursue binary biological weapons and the hostswapping disease bioweapons as their weapon of choice because these bioweapons are already in 

existence and will only become even more readily available by the year 2035.

The “genie” will never again be constrained by the bottle. No matter how small the

chance that genetically engineered bioweapons can get into the wrong hands, the United States 

must stand prepared because the scale of devastation could be massive. America must, at all 

costs, provide deterrent measures to protect the greatest asset of this nation, the freedom of the 

American people.

VII. CONCLUSION

This paper examined the rapid advancement of biotechnology in particular genetically 

engineered pathogens in becoming a weapon of choice for nations, groups, and/or individual

actors by the year 2035. Nations are more likely than groups or individuals to have these 

genetically engineered pathogens as weapons of choice. 
[28]

The modern revolution in biotechnology has given conventional biological warfare 

agents a new meaning. With the wealth of information regarding human genomes, it is all the 

more critical to understand the next generation of biological weapons, in particular, genetically 

engineered pathogens. The complex and technical intricacies of these advanced biological 

weapons demand that the user be highly trained; this limits their use by individuals and 

financially unsupported groups.

The properties and characteristics of these genetically engineered pathogens could make 

them appear quite benign, but when triggered by a signal, they could become extremely lethal. 

Thus, the nature of these bioweapons could make a covert attack appear to be a natural disease 

outbreak; and by the time of discovery, the damage would already have been done. As noted, 

Japan, after more than half a century, only then formally acknowledged that they used biological 

weapons in mainland China.

Biotechnology and its dual-use nature will continue to revolutionize the biological 

weapons program. When a weapon system can have a small footprint, become easy to 

manipulate, and be used at a specific time and place of the attacker’s choosing, then it will

almost invariably become a highly sought after weapon for mass destruction. Biological warfare 

may be is inevitable by the year 2035. It can never be too early to be prepared with the 

knowledge and power to deter or prevent such an attack. The United States cannot afford to lose 

this battle.
[29]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ainscough, Michael J. Next Generation Bioweapons: Genetic Engineering and Biological 

warfare. in The Gathering Biological Warfare Storm, eds. Jim A. Davis and Barry R. 

Schneider. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2004.

Anarchist Cookbook, http://www.licensed4fun.com/anarchist1.htm, (accessed 21 Jan 2010).

Arms Control Association. The Biological Weapons Convention at a Glance. 2006, 

http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2472, (accessed 13 Dec 2009).

Biotechnology. http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2467, (accessed 16 

Nov 2009).

Block, Steven M. Living Nightmares: Biological Threats Enabled by Molecular Biology. in New 

Terror: Facing The Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons. Eds. Sidney D. Drell, 

Abraham D. Sofaer, and George D. Wilson. Hoover Institution Press: Stanford University 

Stanford, CA, 1999.

British Medical Association. Biotechnology Weapons and Humanity. United Kingdom: Harwood 

Academic Publishers, 1999.

Bush, George W. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 

2002.

-------. Homeland Security Presidential Directive-10: Biodefense for the 21st Century.

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/hspd-10.html, (accessed 5 December 2009).

CDC. http://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist-category.asp, (accessed 24 November 2009).

Cohen, William Interview. May 1998. In Tom Mangold and Jeff Goldberg, Plague Wars: The 

Terrifying Reality of Biological Warfare. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.

Collins, Francis S. and others, eds. The Human Genome Project: Lessons from Large-Scale 

Biology. Science Magazine, Vol 300, 2003. http://www.sciencemag.org (accessed Nov 

16, 2009).

Clunan, Anne L. Introduction: Identifying Biological Agents, Characterizing Events, and 

Attributing Blame. In Terrorism, War or Disease. eds. Anne L. Clunan, Peter R. Lavoy, 

and Susan B. Martin. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008. 

Dando, Malcolm. Bioterror and Biowarfare. Oxford: Oneworld, 2006.

---------. Biological Warfare in the 21st Century. London, UK: Brassey’s, 1994.

Enemark, Christian. Biological Weapons: An Overview of Threats and Responses. Canberra: The 

Australian National University, 2003.

Fraser, C.M. and D.R. Dando. 2001. Genomics and future biological weapons: The need for 

preventive action by the biomedical community. Nature Genetics 29(3):253-256. In 

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Globalization, Biosecurity, and the 

Future of the Life Sciences. Washington, DC: the National Academies Press, 2006.

Garreau, Joel. Radical Evolution. New York: Broadway Books, 2005.

International Human Genome Consortium. Initial sequencing and analysis of the Human 

Genome. Nature, Vol 409, (15 Feb 2001): 860-921. 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/pdf/409860a0.pdf. (accessed 16 Nov 

2009).
[30]

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Giving Full Measure to Countemeasures.

Washington, DC: The National Academy Press, 2004.

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future 

of The Life Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press, 2006.

Izumikawa, M. et al. 2005. Auditory hair cell replacement and Hearing improvement by Atoh1 

gene therapyin deaf mammals. In Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. 

Globalization, Biosecurity, and The Future of The Life Sciences. Washington, DC: the 

National Academies Press, 2006.

King IV, William E. Biological Warfare: Are U.S. Armed Forces Ready? VA: Association of the 

U.S. Army, 1999.

Kiziah, Lt Col Rex R. Assessment of the Emerging Biocruise Threat, Counterproliferation Paper 

No. 6. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 2000.

Kurzweil, Ray. The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Penguin 

Books, 2005.

Leitenburg, Milton. Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat. Carlisle, PA: 

U.S. Army War College Press, 2005.

Mangold, Tom and Jeff Goldberg. Plague Wars: The Terrifying Reality of Biological Warfare. 

New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.

National Intelligence Council, Mapping the Global Future, Report of the National Intelligence 

Council’s Project, NIC-2004-13, December 2004.

http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf. (Accessed 10 Dec 09).

National Intelligence Council. Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. NIC 2008-003, Nov 

2008. http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf. 

(Accessed 10 Dec 2009).

Oliver, Richard W. The Biotech Age: The Business of Biotech and How to Profit from It. New 

York: Graw Hill, 2003.

Petro, James B, Theodore R. Plasse, and Jack A. Mcnulty. Biotechnology: Impact on Biological 

Warfare and Biodefense, 2003, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/462541, (accessed 

October 14, 2009).

Piller, Charles and Keith R. Yamamoto. Gene Wars. New York: Beech Tree Books, 1988.

Purkitt, Helen E. Biowarfare Lessons, Emerging Biosecurity Issues, and Ways to Monitor DualUse Biotechnology Trends in the Future. INSS Occasional Paper 61. USAF Academy, 

CO: USAF Institute for National Studies, September 2005.

Secretary General (1969). Chemical and Bacteriological (Biological) Weapons and the Effects of 

their Possible Use. In Bioterror and Biowarfare, ed. Malcolm Dando. Oxford: Oneworld, 

2006.

Schultz , Lt Col Tim. Biopolitik: A Practical Assessment of Future Biowarfare. Maxwell AFB, 

AL: Air University Press, 2004.

The Gene School, Application of Gene Splicing. 

http://library.thinkquest.org/19037/therapy2.html (Accessed 21 Jan 2010).

University of Arizona. General Biology Lesson Plans.

http://biology.arizona.edu/sciconn/lessons2/Vuturo/vuturo/mat_list.htm. (Accessed 21 

Jan 2010).

Yount, Lisa. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, 3rd ed. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 

2008.
[31]

Zhang, Y.Z. et al. 2002. Genome Shuffling leads to rapid phenotypic improvement in bacteria. in 

Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Globalization, Biosecurity, and The 

Future of The Life Sciences. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press, 2006.