Convention on Prohibition of Biological Weapons Essay Example for Free

Convention on Prohibition of biological Weapons try outThe Biological Weapons Convention (BWC, for short) is an international treaty aimed at stopping the production and use of biological agents that regurgitate the diseases among mass. This treaty is officially termed as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. It came into effect in 1975, and by 2000, nearly 150 nations had signed the treaty. By virtue of clauses of the treaty, countries have been tabu to possess big amounts of biological agents or toxins, and all the systems of weaponry to pass them on. Also all the constituent nations or the signatories may non trade into biological weapons or help other countries to develop them. It was in any case made obligatory for the United States and the Soviet Union who conducted experiments to produce biological weapons during the Cold War, a layover of non-act ive hostility between nations after World War II (1939-1945), were called upon to ratify the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) in 970s. But since the treaty did not provide for the means of verifications or inspections, nations had merely agreed to stand by it in good faith.And it was as early as 2000, when some of the governments had tried to figure out methods to pile out inspection and verification. (Biological Weapons Convention, 2007) Efforts to Avert reference-war farther close toe with BWC are Proving Hopeless The US has assessed a number of programs through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) for her plea against probable biological, chemical, and radiological attacks, but the approach is essentially aimed at encourageing the troops and military equipment.Nearly 100 of the signatories of the Biological Weapons Convention made a review of the progress of BWC in 2002, but to their dismay and worry all of them found the situation sort of deplorable an d disappointing. Another survey conducted by Amy Smithson of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, found that more than 80% of the senior government officials, and congressmen cerebration that a biological attack in the near future was in truth likely, especially in view of Al-Qaedas revealed rudimentary experiments with ricin and anthrax. And it is also very easily known that nearly all antidotes for anthrax do not suffice.Besides, 40% of members had n of all time submitted the required report, which is an loose violation of the BWC rules. Ms Amy Smithson added that had there were more emergent and serious efforts, the things might have moved before into Bio-safety and Bio-security. The director of UNIDIR (UNs disarmament research institute in Geneva), Patricia Lewis, commented that although apparently the progress of work over the ag ane few years has proved useful, yet to be more efficient and systematic, there is an ardent affect of a foolproof a ction plan, which, she feared, may not be due until 2008. Is America Safe from Biological Attack?Although huge spending has been made on her bio- refutal, the US appears as vulnerable as ever to a concerted terrorist attack. Therefore development of a better strategy and a oft stronger defense is simply inconceivable without a change in the policy of federal official government. It is also a spark off of hard American history nearly vii years back when the nation had hardly recovered from the wounds of 9/11, than someone sent Anthrax Spores to reputed Journalists and famed politicians through the US mail. The result was that five people died and more than seventeen got sick, and it was painful to observe that none of the culprits was ever caught.This attack added to the already growing fears in the US, about the hard-liners and bio-terrorists being so determined to spread disease and mayhem across the nation. To combat the threat, the provide administration launched an unpara lleled bio-defense plan, and until today almost $44 billion has been spent by the US federal government for providing protection to the civilians, organizations, and for buying the latest remedies such as the classic smallpox vaccine. But the apt question is whether this colossal spending has made Americans any safer? The veterans at the Center for Bio-security at the University of Pittsburgh say that the issue is a big No. Denouncing the government efforts as insufficient they hold that the US remains un hard-hitting to defend itself against any anthrax attack involving more than a few envelopes. So where is the big winner? (Biological Weapons Convention, 2007) One of the many bio-defense efforts made by the administration is the Bio-Shield project, which was launched in 2004, and was aimed at turning drug companies into defense entrepreneurs, delivering products to fight against a potential bio-weapons threat.Although there is much in store for the Project Bio-Shield like a $5. 6 billion package to be spent by 2014 on drugs, yet the pharmaceutical companies, much against expectations havent done enough that could accomplish the Bio-Shields objectives. The lukewarm response by these companies has been a antecedent of perpetrating a bill in the US Congress, in order to make the Bio-Shield a more effective and more viable a project. Has Project Bio-Shield Proved Sufficient for US Bio-defense Needs Apparently the Bio-Shields strategy appears quite prudently designed.But companies normally do not cater for remedies for the unique kind of diseases thought most likely to be used as weapons, simply because there are no meshwork in it. Resultantly the Project Bio-Shield promises companies to buy them only the special drugs and vaccines that would counter threats of bio-weapons, giving them an option and a guiltless hand to do the rest of job. If such is the case then why there has so far been a very sluggish response is a question which must be answered with fir mness if not with finality. (New Scientist, 2003)In fact Project BioShield has awarded contracts for 7 products, worth $2 billion. They are 1. Two for antibody-based therapies for botulism and anthrax. 2. One for 10 million doses of the militarys existing anthrax vaccine. 3. One biggest funding of $878 million has been guaranteed to VaxGen of Brisbane, California, for 75 million doses of a purer, newborn-generation anthrax vaccine. 4. One order is for 20 million doses of an improved smallpox vaccine from the Danish firm Bavarian Nordic, and 5. Project BioShield has provided $4 million to universities to fund basic pathogen research.Brad Smith of the Center for Bio-security said, The government has neer done anything like this before, He also asserted that the department of Homeland Security must get-go decide what designated threats really are, and only then should the Department of Health commissions drugs or vaccines be designed to protect against them. He added that the diseas es it picked so far pertain only to anthrax, botulism and smallpox. However, the targeted one bug, one drug approach has been seen by some experts as basically wrong.A better approach, they say, would be to aim for broad-spectrum remedies that work against many opposite bacteria or viruses. But then it would be more cost-effective would offer mere defense blanket against terrorists with whatever their choice of bio-weapon be, and would also come with additional advantage of protection against natural diseases. baffle remarked, if something works for flu and for bio-weapons as well, why not do that? (New Scientist, 2003) A recent research by think tanks like Tucker and Andrew Grotto shows that much more effort is yet required.Only seven states and four cities have the capability to administer stockpiled vaccines on a large scale, Tucker said. He added that most Americans live in states that have no plans for dealing with large numbers of casualties caused by contagious diseases. Th e new bill that was presented before the Congress attempted to address some of these problems i. e. to appoint a new wellness secretary for public health to improve the quality of equipment for medical emergencies, and to provide $1 billion as annual funding.But this would not have been enough to solve the delivery problem, or give hospitals the condenser to deal with a surge in patients. Although the bill, presented before Congress, mandated research into new tools and methods for developing drugs and vaccines, yet it did not go ahead in the way to taking Project Bio-Shields focus away from the one bug, one drug strategy and on to a broader spectrum of remedies. But this newest Bio-Shield Project certainly did no go any further to solve the problems of how to get remedies out to any probable and potential victims of the bio-weapons attack. (MacKenzie and Debora, 2006)ReferencesAcademic Research prime minister Can the line against bio-terror hold? 2006 (Economist, 00130613, Vol. 3 81). Biological Weapons Convention 2007 http//www. worldbookonline. com/wb/Article? id=ar726514st=biological+warfare Accessed, July 7, 2007 Bob. B. 2007 weapon of mass destruction Antidotes Still Go to Iraq (National Journal, 03604217, Vol. 39, Issue Lussier, Frances M. 2007 Gas mask. http//www. worldbookonline. com/wb/Article? id=ar217900 Accessed, July 7, 2007 MacKenzie, Debora. 2006. Fortress America (New Scientist Vol. 191, p18-21) Ross. S. America the Beautifuls Germ Warfare Rash, Jul/Aug2007 (Humanist, 00187399 Vol. 67, Issue 4)