American Scientist

July/August 1971
59: 399

Weapons ban

Dear Sirs:

I am in complete agreement with
Lederberg in advocating international
control of biological weaponry (Ameri-
can Scientist 59:195, March 1971). No
stone should be left unturned if there
is even the remotest chance it may
contribute to bringing about some
order and sense to human relations.
However, I believe Lederberg has
greatly weakened his argument when
he supports the administration’s pro-
posal for a watered-down international
ban on chemical weapons. There is no
doubt that herbicides have peaceful
uses, but this should not prevent them
being banned as weapons. What are
the arguments against prohibiting one
country from using such weapons on
another country?

I would go the Geneva protocol one
better and include sanctions against
the most destructive of all chemical
weapons—the common — everyday
bomb. It would not be necessary to
prohibit the use cf bombs in warfare,
but inerely to control by international
sanctions their zadiscriminate use. Be
sides killing countless thousands of

people, bombs have probably de-
stroved more agricultural land in
Indochina than have — herbicides.

Thousands of acres of rich delta land
are now pocked with deep, water-
filled craters suitable only for produc-
ing carp,

The current accelerating urbaniza-

tion and uncontrolled human popula-
tion growth is likewise radically chang-
ing the environment, upsetting age-
old biolegical equilibria and imposing
on man physical, psychological, and
Social stresses he is ill-equipped to
handle. The influenza virus does not
vindictively attack its human host with
intent to destroy it. The virus, and
many others lke it, merely expands
its range and increases its population
to fill the niches we have so thought-
lessly provided it.

The war against disease has many
similarities with the war between men.
Both to a large extent are man-made
anomalies. The path to survival of the
species is not that of the conquering
hero. We must learn to live with our-
selves and in our environment, not at
the expense of the other guy or the
other creatures with whom we share
th‘s tiny planet.

Nyven J. Marchette

Tropical Medicine and Medical Mi-
crobiology

Leahi Hospital, University of Hawaii

Honolulu, Hawaii

Dr. Lederberg replies:

No sane human being could have
different feelings about war than those
expressed by Nyven Marchette. But
if we wait until we Icarn how to for-
fend war in general before we take
steps to control biological weaponry
in particular, we are likely to suffer
a double measure of both.

As to our “war against disease,”
I cannot argue with the importance
of ecological humility in our ap-
proaches to this threat. If man still
inhabited a figurative Garden of Eden,
his paleolithic culture would be dom-
inated by very different problems
from the ones that face us today.
However, the “balance of nature”
offers no assurance that any particular
species will survive, especially not
such a frail creature as man, whose de-
fenses are limited to what his wits can
create.

On March 30 the Soviet bloc made
a new treaty proposal at the Geneva
Disarmament Conference. In effect,
this closely followed the previous pro-
posals by the British and U.S. delega-
tions for a separate treaty to control
Liological weapons development, pro-
duction, and = stockpiles. This offers
great encouragement that such a
treaty can be negutiated and put into
effect very soon, perhaps within the
year.