Abstract:
Biologically engineered agents used to cause illness or death can be spread through the air, through water, in food, or even from person to person. These biological weapons can be devastating and can be utilized in bioterrorist attacks, which can have crippling and wide-ranging effects on public health. The threat of bioterrorism is a relatively new concern which has left a mark on academic research of biological agents, public perception of biological agents, and ultimately public health. This paper will explore the ethical and bioethical implications of biological weapons and the indirect effects of bioterrorism on public health.
Annotated Bibliography:
Moreno, J. (2002). Bioethics After the Terror. American Journal of Bioethics. 2(1): 60-64.
After the September 11th attacks, autonomy and individual rights have been encroached upon for the collective good. This paper discusses the possibility of a paradigm shift in bioethics, due to a change in public perception of terrorism, what is deemed necessary to protect the public, and the pursuit of academic knowledge. This paper would be useful in exploring the public perception of bioterrorism and the effect of perception on bioethics.
Cooper, W. O. (2009). Antibiotics potentially used in response to bioterrorism and the risk of major congenital malformations. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 23(1): 18-28.
Victims of bioterrorism attacks would most likely require antibiotic prophylaxis or treatment, including many pregnant women. However, little is known about the safety of fetal exposure to these drugs. This paper explores the effects of the antibiotics used to treat victims of bioterrorism. This paper would be useful in describing the indirect effects of bioterrorism and the effectiveness of the measures used to address bioterrorism.
Guinan, P. (2002). Bioterrorism, Embryonic Stem Cells, and Frankenstein. Journal of Religion and Health. 41(4):305.
The terrorist anthrax attack in October 2001 caused an unprecedented public health crisis in the United States. This paper discusses whether scientific research on super pathogens need to be restricted and whether the potential for human harm renders scientific curiosity indefensibile. This paper exhibits a rather conservative view and would be useful in exploring the complexity of bioethics in research.
Eaton, L. (2004). BMA says Scientists Should Take Part in Bioterrorism Debate. BMJ. 329(7473): 993.a
The rapid expansion of biotechnology and the quickening pace of discoveries opens up new possibilities for misuse. This short article discusses the need for scientists to be at the forefront of the debate on how to police the academic community to reduce the risk of scientific information being misused. This article would be useful in describing the bioethical responsibilities that those in academia hold.
Somerville, M. (2005). Ethics: A Weapon to Counter Bioterrorism. Science. 307(5717): 1881-1882.
This article suggests that the potential for misuse of scientific research grows with advances in molecular biology and bioinformatics. An act of terrorism could involve biological agents and international consensus is crucial to reducing this risk. This article suggests adopting a code of ethics to govern research in the life sciences. This article is useful, as it will help to define what ethical values are used to prevent bioterrorism today.
