~~ gas has also been used in military and ~~

By Joshua Ledérherg’
(The author is Professor of Genetics at
the Stanford University School of Medi-.

cine, and a recipient of the Nobel Prize:

for Medicine in 1958.). _
‘-ON SEPT. 19.9 distingulshed group
‘of my scientific colleagues released the
‘text of a petition, to President Johnson
‘concerning U.S. palicy on biological and
chemical warfare.:'They polnt to the en-
couragemént for the wider'commitment
to these weapons that our own actions In
Vietnam might generate.

  

chemicals not only against forest cover

Treaty Proposal

On Germ Warfare

ports,..we. are <
..Making extensive use of defoliating

wt

a

won

‘

‘

—! ps-purportediy—avail——
~“able to the Vietcong. At some tiniea, tear

occupation missions.

ct

——_—The—United--States--has -vehemently —

denied the military use of any biological

--—weapons--or —of—any~-lethal —chemica]——

“weapons has continued since World
*-War II. The Army has a well-known
research facility at Fort Detrick, Md.,
and a testing station at Dugway, Utah.

laid to intra-service competion for funds

==—to-expand-s-Hne-of s

. deal Warfare) can easily evoke a highly

emotional response, attracting the most |

vehement emotions on the inhumanity
of war. The focus on boycott demonstra-

tions against napalm production shows .

a

a

sé
, The aggressiveness with which these -
~ activities have been publicized. may be

-—military--utility—is—highly--controversial-———
——-CBR (Chemical, Biological, Radiolog- ‘!

.

a

*%

this; aircraft manufacture or ‘steel pro-~

duction would be far more consequential

‘tothe roots of military homicide. The:
—-petitioners do not allude to the specific
inhumanity of CBR, but it is undoubt.- -

~ edly involved in the stringency of their
reactions.

oe ~

CAN WE be “rational” abolit the in-

humanity of one class of weapons as —

against another? It is hard to imagine

more inhuman methods of homicide

than explosion or suffocation in a col-

lapsed building or starvation, the most

widely practiced techniques of contem-

porary warfare. Humanitarian opposi-:
tion to CBR is altogether irrational, -
except as it is directed to war itself. It

can be argued, however, that man's"
proclivity to warfare must be contained

through his social institutions, and any

breakdown of traditional limitations in

the way war is practiced is one more

step of degradation of the species.

The petition suggests that minor uses
of CBR will lead to escalation. However,
since tear gas is already rationalized for
other social. purposes, the lumping of
Chemical, Biological and Radiological
warfare may be especially confusing,
and could exacerbate the chances of
escalation. Biological warfare should be
carefully set apart, particularly for the -
initiative in international negotiations,

—ffor several reasons: |

Its development is closest to medical .

research, therefore cénveys the most
intense perversions of the human aims
of science.

It is the most dubious of military .

weapons.

Its effects in field usé are most unpre-
dictable, with respect to civilian casual-
ties, and even retroactive on the user.

The large scale deployment of in- |

fectious agents is a potential threat
against the whole species: mutant forms

a

of viruses could well develop that would -
spread over the earth’s population for a

new Black Death. Chemical weapons,

however potent, at least do not produce |

equally or more virulent’ offspring!
cons

ONE APPROACH to the contrel of

biological warfare should be a non--
Proliferation treaty. Biological warfare —
development is within the potential re-.-

sources of the smallest nations, and the
weapons liable to the most {rresponsible
use. On the other hand, no vital interests
of one nation are now committed to bio- °
logical warfare: the powers can afford to-
limit their sovereignty in this area.

A nonproliferation treaty in this area &

—voul 7

other areas of arms control; the more”

narrowly it is defined the greater the
likelihood of its adoption. ,

The treaty could dedicate all biologi-
cal and medical research to human wel-
fare. In this-light, ho research on living

and Ph.D.’s in life stiences would be.

registered and expected to report peri- ,

odically on their current research ac-.

‘tivity to an international organization.
- Ideally, these registrants should have -

the right of free travel, if necessary, for
the purpose of reporting violations of
the treaty. Special provisions are‘needed
for proprictary interests, e.g., the drug

*

‘ organisms could be classified. M.D.’s *”.

me 2

Ao

a

industry, but with stringent time limits *

set for confidentiality of its information.

a

A world data center for life sciences *

would have many human benefits, in ad- -
dition to centralizing the surveillance of
treaty obligations.

The future of the species is very
much bound up with the control of these

«

tr

weapons. Their use must be regulated ~

by the most thoughtful reconsideration | .
“bE U.S. and world policy. ot