A combination of advances in biotechnology and easy access to inputs has heightened the threat of bio-attacks, David Heyman, an international expert on bioterrorism, said here on Thursday.
In an interview with The Hindu, Mr. Heyman, Director and Senior Fellow, Homeland Security Program, at the Washington D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), described the anthrax attacks in the U.S. [in 2001], and the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak in the Asia Pacific region [in 2003] as “two wakeup calls” for the threats posed by bio-attacks. “Those two things said we have got to be concerned about disease, and the possibility of it being used for harmful purposes.”
The former was restricted to the U.S., but had international repercussions: “On every continent, in every country practically, there were hoaxes and fears that required the governments’ attention — law enforcement and/or public health authorities who had to run down to see if they were real.”
Although SARS “happened primarily in Asia, and North America, all the world had to be concerned because of the speed of travel, everyone becomes a carrier.”
Access to bio-weapons was evident from recent attacks such as the chemical warfare in Iraq, and the polonium assassination in London.
“What you can get your hands on, and do some damage is certainly within the realm of possibility now, and the realm of existence.”
The difficulties in tracing a bio-attack posed another problem. “Unlike nuclear or even explosive attacks, bio is unique in that whether you are a state actor, or a non-state actor, it is very hard to trace.” And, “You leave very few footprints when preparing for a bio-attack.”
The technology needed for a bio-attack, Mr. Heyman, who is a former senior adviser to the U.S. Secretary of Energy, said, “has become more and more available to private citizens and small groups,” as they were getting “smaller, faster and cheaper.” In the last 20 years, the technology had evolved “as rapidly and as effectively as computers have, almost in parallel, if not more so.” This trend was mainly driven by the race for the Human Genome Project, and the application of biotechnology to pharmaceuticals and life sciences. The main technologies used for bio-engineering were now “basically the equivalent of desktop capability” and were available off the shelf or over the counter, as they were dual-use in nature. Striking a note of caution, he said: “Where technology is available and intent is there; harm can be done.”
Mr. Heyman, however, entered a caveat on bio-attacks by non-state actors. “It’s still hard to do. You need to be technologically-versed. Access to technology and material doesn’t mean that you can actually successfully achieve bio-weapons. In fact, bio-weapons are much harder to do than explosives.”
Drawing a parallel with the recent Gujarat serial blasts, he said: “These were technologically simple explosives; bio-weapons are much more complicated and to get that right, we have to get a lot of other things right, so it is still hard to do.”
Mr. Heyman, who prepared a report on the working of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) continued to pose the most concern, as it was the “preferred weapon of choice for terrorists.” Over 55 per cent of all terrorist attacks involve IEDs, next are probably gun attacks, he pointed out.
Major lesson
The major lesson from the recent bombings in India was that “States cooperate and the Central government does not necessarily force that to happen.”
The Ahmedabad-attacks case, he said, was cracked because there was inter-State cooperation between the domestic security and intelligence agencies.
Referring to the trans-State dynamics of the serial bombing, he said: “That’s the way terrorists operate, that’s the way they operate within the state, within a country and now within the world. We have to take trans-border actions. Terrorists take advantage of bureaucracies. They are going to hide in the seams of society and that’s what they do best and we who seek to protect society have got to break down those barriers between states, between governments and that’s true internationally.”
Entries (RSS)