Biowarfare Science Buddies Bibliography

At the end of 1944, Vannevar Bush and James Conant, the atomic administrators at the Office of Scientific Research and Development and the National Defense Research Committee, were starting to worry about what to do about the bomb. Not in the near term — butwhat to do about itafter World War II.

How do you regulate a totally new technology — both domestically and internationally? Where do you begin, in thinking about it? Especially when the technology in question is the atomic bomb,a weapon that seemed to pose insuperable existential questions and seemed capable of revolutionizing not only war, but the idea of nation-states themselves?

General Leslie Groves, James B. Conant, and Vannevar Bush, in August 1945

Bush and Conant, for their part, spent a lot of time looking for analogies: using their experience with other regulatory regimes to inform their understanding of an atomic regulatory regime.

This wasn’t their first technological rodeo: Bush had been deeply involved in radio technology regulation in the 1920s, and Conant was a veteran hand when it came both to chemical warfare and, as it happened, the regulation of rubber. (One of the many control approaches they pursued was that of patents, which I’ve written about pretty extensively.)

But even more pertinently, they worked openly on the problem of regulating biological warfare, with the secret goal of using this as a trial balloon for the types of regulations they’d recommend for the atomic bomb.

The weekly document is a letter from Vannevar Bush to James B. Conant, dated October 24, 1944, on the problem of the long-term control of biological warfare— not just because Bush thought it was important, but because he thought it would help make sense of what to do with the bomb.1

Click image for the PDF.

Bush started it off by referencing a “recent memorandum” to the Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, which they had sent at the end of September. In that memo, Bush and Conant warned that secrecy wouldn’t be a long-term international solution for the bomb, and strongly recommended that Stimson start seriously making moves towards some means of international control of the bomb. Stimson wasn’t yet sure, though (he would later become convinced).

He then continued:

I have been giving some thought to another subject recently, and possibly it offers a means of approaching this one [the bomb]. Everyone is now agreed, I think, that biological warfare is not likely to break out in the European Theatre. In the Far East the situation may be more dangerous, especially if chemical warfare is started, but even there I believe that any large-scale biological warfare is highly unlikely for the present war. In fact, excitement on the matter in this country has died down. 

In the world of the future there may be some danger that biological warfare would be developed in secret by a future aggressor and suddenly sprung upon the world. This depends, I suppose, upon how biological matters develop, but the possibility is already there in some forms.

Bush considers biological warfare to be somewhat of a dead, but scary, letter.  Since it was looking like it would be irrelevant to the current conflict (Bush either didn’t know or didn’t consider the BW use by Japan again the Chinese to fall under this assessment), it could be talked about relatively openly. Thus they could explore some of the salient questions about the atomic bomb before the bomb itself was outside of secrecy. Pretty clever, Dr. Bush.

The exact plan Bush was shooting around was as follows:

Now it seems to me that this would be far less dangerous if there were full interchange between biological scientists all over the world, especially if this occurred through an international organization, with frequent international conferences on epidemiology held in all of the large countries in turn, and with a central organization collecting public health information, with particular emphasis on the prevention of epidemics. Under such circumstances if one country were developing the military aspects of the matter on a large scale in secret there would be a fair chance, I believe, that it would become known.

Certainly any county that did not have ideas of aggressionsomewhere in the back of its mind would be inclined to join such an affair genuinely and open up the interchange, unless indeed there is more duplicity in the world than I am inclined to think. It may be well worth while to attempt to bring this about.

The plan, then, was to have complete scientific interchange as a regulatory mechanism. If the work being done is talked about openly, then there would be no “secret arms race.”

This is an idea that was quite popular in many circles at the time regarding the bomb, as well. Niels Bohr in particular argued very strongly for this form of “international control”: if you got rid of secrecy, he argued, you’d be able to see what everyone was doing, and if all the relevant scientists dropped of the face of the Earth all of the sudden, you’d know they were developing WMDs.2

It’s an optimistic idea, one which puts a little too much stock, I think, in the communicative power of scientific exchange. An invitation to a conference is not a verification mechanism. It doesn’t take into account the ability of states to stage entirely shadow programs, or to have scientists who are happy to be duplicitious to other scientists. It somewhat naively subscribes to the idea of a transnational scientific community that is “above” politics. Even by World War II such a notion should have been seen as somewhat old fashioned; certainly the Cold War showed it to be.

Still, the goals were laudable, and as a way for thinking through international scientific control, it wasn’t the worst approach. Bush and Conant’s greatest fear with respects to the bomb was a “secret arms race.” They really thought this could not end with anything but mass destruction for all. At least a non-secret arms race, they argued, would keep people from doing anything too stupid.

Bush closes the letter with this wonderful paragraph:

You will readily see that I have in mind more than meets the eye, and am thinking of an entering wedge. However, I would very much like to explore with you this particular thing on its own merits, and also from the standpoint of what its relationship might be to other matters.

Bush was interested in the control of biological warfare, but he was more interested in thinking about the bomb. Biological warfare would be his “entering wedge” in approaching the issue of scientific control, knowing that soon enough they’d be worrying about something he considered even bigger.

Notes

Tags: 1940s, Biowarfare, James B. Conant, Manhattan Project, Vannevar Bush

This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 25th, 2012 at 8:32 am and is filed under Redactions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Citation: Alex Wellerstein, "Biological Warfare: Vannevar Bush’s “Entering Wedge” (1944)," Restricted Data: The Nuclear Secrecy Blog, July 25, 2012, accessed March 11, 2018, http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/07/25/biological-warfare-vannevar-bushs-entering-wedge/.


1. Carter B, Pearson G. British biological warfare and biological defense, 1925-45. In: Geissler E, editor; , Moon JEvC, editor. , eds. Biological and Toxin Weapons: Research, Development and Use from the Middle Ages to 1945. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999

2. Covert NM. Cutting Edge: A History of Fort Detrick, Maryland, 1943-1993. Fort Detrick, MD: Public Affairs Office, Headquarters, US Army Garrison, Fort Detrick, MD; 1993

3. Harris SH. Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932-1945, and the American Cover Up. New York: Routledge; 1994

4. Miller J, Engelberg S, Broad W. Germs: Biological Weapons and America's Secret War. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2001

5. Leitenberg M, Zilinskas RA, Kuhn JH. The Soviet Biological Weapons Program: A History. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2012

6. Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons. Opened for signature April 10, 1972, and entered into force March 26, 1975. http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/convention-prohibition-development-production-and-stockpiling-bacteriological-biological-and-toxin-weapons-btwc/ Accessed July18, 2016

7. Welcome to Dugway Proving Ground Dugway Proving Ground website. 2016. http://www.military.com/base-guide/dugway-proving-ground Accessed July18, 2016

8. Harris R, Paxman J. A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret Story of Chemical and Biological Warfare. New York: Hill and Wang; 1982

9. Pearson GS. Gruinard Island returns to civil use. ASA Newsletter September 1990;90(5). http://www.asanltr.com/newsletter/01-5/articles/015c.htm Accessed July18, 2016

10. Regis E. Biology of Doom: The History of America's Secret Germ Warfare Project. New York: Henry Holt; 1999

11. Balmer B. The UK biological weapons program. In: Wheelis M, editor; , Rósza L, editor; , Dando M, editor. , eds. Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2006:47-83

12. UK Ministry of Defense. Operation Cauldron 1952, AC 12217, Scientific Report by the Microbiological Research Department, Porton, and Naval Report by the Naval Commander, April 1953

13. Barnett A. Millions were in germ war tests. Guardian April 21, 2002. http://www.thegurdian.com/politics/2002/apr/21/uk.medicalscience Accessed July18, 2016

14. Norris KP. Concentration, Viability, and Immunological Properties of Airborne Bacteria Released from a Massive Line Source. UK Ministry of Defense, MRE Field Trial Report No. 3 (Trials conducted October 1963 to April 1964); 1966

15. US Department of Defense. Project 112/SHAD Fact Sheets. Health.mil website. 2003. http://mcm.fhpr.osd.mil/cb_exposures/project112_shad/shadfactSheets.aspx Accessed July18, 2016

16. US House of Representatives Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Health. Military operations aspects of SHAD and Project 112. October 9, 2002. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg84758/pdf/CHRG-107hhrg84758.pdf Accessed July18, 2016

17. US Senate Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Personnel. The Department of Defense's inquiry into Project 112/Shipboard Hazard and Defense (SHAD) tests. October 10, 2002. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg84856/html/CHRG-107shrg84856.htm Accessed July18, 2016

18. US Senate. Committee on Human Resources, Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research. Biological testing involving human subjects by the Department of Defense. March 8 and May 23, 1977. https://archive.org/details/biologicaltestin00unit Accessed July18, 2016

19. US Army Chemical Corps. Summary of Major Events and Problems for 1958. Historical Office Army Chemical Center, Maryland, annual reports, 1953–1962

20. Cole LA. The Eleventh Plague: The Politics of Biological and Chemical Warfare. New York: WH Freeman; 1997

21. Moon JEvC. The US biological weapons program. In: Wheelis M, editor; , Rósza L, editor; , Dando M, editor. , eds. Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2006:9-46

22. Cole LA. Clouds of Secrecy: The Army's Germ Warfare Tests Over Populated Areas. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 1990

23. US Chemical Corps Biological Laboratories. Biological Warfare Trials at San Francisco, California, 20-27 September 1950. Special Report No. 142. Camp Detrick, Frederick, MD, January 22, 1951

24. US Army Chemical Corps. Behavior of Aerosol Clouds Within Cities. Joint Quarterly Report No. 3, Jan-Mar 1953

25. US Army Chemical Corps. Behavior of Aerosol Clouds Within Cities. Joint Quarterly Report No. 4, Jul-Sep 1953

26. US Army Chemical Corps. Summary of Major Events and Problems for 1959. Historical Office Army Chemical Center, Maryland, annual reports, 1953-1962

27. Guillemin J. Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism. New York: Columbia University Press; 2005

28. US Army Biological Laboratories. Miscellaneous Publication 7, Study US65SP. Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD, July 1965

29. US Army. A Study of the Vulnerability of Subway Passengers in New York City to Covert Action with Biological Agents. Miscellaneous Publication 25. Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD, January 1968

30. Cole LA. The Anthrax Letters: A Medical Detective Story. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003

31. Cole LA, Kahn LH, Sandman PM. Bioterrorism and the communication of uncertainty. In: Cole LA, editor; , Connell ND, editor. , eds. Local Planning for Terror and Disaster: From Bioterrorism to Earthquakes. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012

32. Kournikakis B, Armour SJ, Boulet CA, Spence M, Parsons B. Risk Assessment of Anthrax Threat Letters. Canada Defense R&D Technical Report DRES TR-2001-048. September 2001. http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/canadiananthraxstudysep01.pdf Accessed July18, 2016

33. Worthington R. Army test raises accusations. Chicago Tribune June 15, 1994. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-06-15/news/9406150171_1_zinc-cadmium-sulfide-tests-sen-paul-wellstone Accessed July18, 2016

34. Mann J. Suit filed over government test-spraying in St. Louis during Cold War. St. Louis Post-Dispatch November 21, 2012. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/suit-filed-over-government-test-spraying-in-st-louis-during/article_9bc1fc7d-7093-58a3-b557-0cbac5dc38ab.html Accessed July18, 2016

35. Boudreau A, Bronstein S. Island residents sue U.S., saying military made them sick. CNN February 1, 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/01/vieques.illness/ Accessed July18, 2016

36. Page WF, Young HA, Crawford HM; Advisory Panel for the Study of Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD; Medical Follow-Up Agency; Board on Military and Veterans Health; Institute of Medicine. Long-Term Health Effects of Participation in Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007

37. Committee on Shipboard Hazard and Defense II (SHAD II); Board on the Health of Select Populations; Institute of Medicine; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Assessing Health Outcomes Among Veterans of Project SHAD (Shipboard Hazard and Defense). Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2016. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21846/assessing-health-outcomes-among-veterans-of-project-shad-shipboard-hazard-and-defense Accessed July18, 2016

38. Schmidt U. Secret Science: A Century of Poison Warfare and Human Experiments. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2015

39. Makhijani A, Schwartz SI. Victims of the bomb. In: Schwartz SI, editor. , ed. Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press; 1998

40. National Research Act PL 93-348, July 12, 1974. https://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL93-348.pdf Accessed July18, 2016

41. Buchanan A. Medical paternalism. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1978;7(4):370-390 [PubMed]

42. American Medical Association Opinion. 8.08—Informed Consent. Issued 1981; updated 2006. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-ethics/code-medical-ethics/opinion808.page? Accessed July18, 2016

43. New York City Police Department and Brookhaven Lab to conduct airflow study in New York City streets and subways this summer [news release] Brookhaven National Laboratories, April 23, 2013. https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=11532 Accessed July18, 2016

44. Dwyer J. Test gas attack is coming to the subway, this time with fair notice. New York Times May 14, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/15/nyregion/test-gas-attack-to-come-in-subways-and-its-not-the-first.html Accessed July18, 2016

45. Pragmatic, randomized optimal platelet and plasma ratios (PROPPR). University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD: http://umm.edu/programs/shock-trauma/about/shock-trauma-news/blood-research-study Accessed July18, 2016

46. Moon S, Sridhar D, Pate MA, et al. Will Ebola change the game? Ten essential reforms before the next pandemic. The report of the Harvard-LSHTM Independent Panel on the Global Response to Ebola. Lancet 2015;3386(10009):2204-2221 [PubMed]

47. Questions and answers: estimating the future number of cases in the Ebola epidemic—Liberia and Sierra Leone, 2014–2015. CDC website. September 26, 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/qa-mmwr-estimating-future-cases.html Accessed August18, 2016

48. World Health Organization Ebola Situation Report, January 14, 2015. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/148237/2/roadmapsitrep_14Jan2015_eng.pdf?ua=1&ua=1 Accessed July18, 2016

49. World Health Organization Latest Ebola outbreak over in Liberia; West Africa is at zero, but new flare-ups are likely to occur [news release]. January 14, 2016. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2016/ebola-zero-liberia/en/ Accessed July18, 2016

50. Cha AE, Sun LH. WHO: Zika virus ‘spreading explosively,’ level of alarm ‘extremely high.’Washington Post January 28, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/01/28/zika-virus-who-announces-formation-of-emergency-committee-level-of-alarm-extremely-high/ Accessed July18, 2016

51. Kurz CL, Chauvet S, Andrès E, et al. Virulence factors of the human opportunistic pathogen Serratia marcescens identified by in vivo screening. EMBO J 2003;22(7):1451-1460 [PMC free article][PubMed]

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *