To What Extent Did Cold War Biological Weapons Research Leave a Lasting Impact Through Its Scientific Discoveries That Continued to Benefit Citizens Post-War?

Breakthroughs from clandestine labs with the sole purpose of developing weapons of mass devastation are today responsible for saving the lives of millions of people. The United States and the Soviet Union were engaged in a race for supremacy in the areas of space exploration, nuclear weapons development, and, in particular, biological weapons research during the time of the Cold War, leading to a high level of tension between the two countries. Biological weapons' potential to cause widespread damage sparked the interest of major nations. Countries developed their own bioweapons research programs to create both offensive weapons and defensive methods against biological agents as a result of the looming threat of biological warfare. With advanced research came scientific advancements that left reverberations in society. The research conducted on biological weapons during the Cold War and post-Cold War era resulted in significant progress in microbiology, virology, and genetic engineering, yielding positive benefits post-war.

First of all, research on biological warfare during the Cold War eras prompted extensive explorations in the field of microbiology which contributed to advancements in microbial diagnostics, and biosafety protocols. Microbiology, the study of microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, algae, etc., is a major part of biowarfare research. It helps countries develop ways to use pathogens as weapons and strengthen the understanding of microbes so that defenses can be devised against potential biological threats (DaSilva). At the start of the post-Cold War era – specifically, during the Gulf War in 1991 with Iraq – the United States received Intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was preparing to use bioweapons, including anthrax and botulism. Then only equipped with rudimentary biological agent detectors, namely, benchtop enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) and simple, portable, antibody-based chromatographic assays developed in the late 1960s, the Department of Defense (DoD) realized that more sophisticated methods of detection are needed. In response, the military laboratories started to research more effective biological detectors. The Biological Integrated Detection System (BIDS), was developed because of this. Described as a "biochemistry lab on wheels," it can “detect all types of BW agents in <10min, identify any 8 agents simultaneously in <30 min, collect a sample for confirmatory analysis, and report results …” (Walt and Franz). As a result of the Cold War and fears about biowarfare, there was a heightened focus on researching defense tactics, resulting in significant advancements in microbiology, including the creation of more efficient methods for detecting biological agents. Initially developed for military purposes, the BIDS subsequently served as the basis for further developments aimed at aiding civilians.

Thus, the dangerous nature of bioweapons research spurred a series of biosafety protocols that are still in use today. During the 1980s, concerns about a potential biological arms race brought scrutiny to the Department of Defense's Biological Defense Research Program (BDRP). As a result, a Senate subcommittee investigated the safety procedures of biological laboratories, “prompting the Army to write new safety regulations that formalize the existing compliance with directives and standards of a dozen regulatory agencies” (Charles). The positive impact of these protocols is tremendous. For example, in 1989, Ebola-like viruses were identified in monkeys imported to United States laboratories. Because of the subsequent actions by the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) based on the safety protocols, this highly lethal virus was contained (Charles). Without the established safety precautions, the Ebola-like virus may have led to a very deadly epidemic. Nowadays, several of these techniques are still in use, effectively averting disease epidemics and protecting the welfare of citizens. These achievements were only made feasible due to the existence of biological weapons research facilities that encouraged the use of these techniques. Hence, it can be said that the advancements resulting from bioweapons research continue to have a beneficial influence on individuals even after the Cold War.

Furthermore, virology – a part of microbiology – in the context of biowarfare, particularly by the United States and the Soviet Union, influenced defense strategies against viral threats while also facilitating progress in global health by accelerating vaccine development and enhancing people’s knowledge of viral pathogenesis. Viruses are very effective for biowarfare due to their simple manufacturing process, ability to survive across various environments, and potential to cause severe illness and death, making them suitable for widespread distribution to incapacitate or eliminate a specific population. For example, in the Cold War, the Soviet Union stockpiled dangerous substances like Variola major, the virus that causes smallpox, and released 400g of it on Vozrozhdeniye Island in the Aral Sea during an experiment. Although the island was deserted then, a researcher 15km away got infected (Meyer, R.F., and S.A. Morse). This demonstrates the extensive reach and impact of a viral bioweapon, showcasing its effectiveness. Fort Detrick, a research institute that began in 1931 to protect the United States against biological threats “pioneered the laboratory facility designs, equipment and procedures used for infectious disease research that are in place today in laboratories worldwide”("Fort Detrick"). This marked the first steps in virology research done for purposes related to biowarfare that left a lasting impact on the world. Likewise, research programs at Fort Detrick pioneered vaccine development. Being a medical defense program, the Fort was initiated to protect the personnel on the offensive side. Consequently, its primary aim was to create vaccines against the main agents of biowarfare – Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis (VEE), tularemia, anthrax, Q fever, botulism, etc. (Charles). This effort was successful, resulting in a vaccine against VEE that limited the spread of the virus in the 1971 Texas VEE epizootic (Paessler, Slobodan, and Scott). The possibility of biowarfare using viral agents engendered vaccines, including novel strategies to create them. The technologies used to develop vaccines in the 20th century gave rise to the more advanced vaccine creation methods used in contemporary settings. For example, the Biological Defense Research Program (BDPR) applied recombinant DNA technology and genetic engineering to develop more effective "polyvalent vaccines using vectors such as the vaccinia virus, adenovirus, baculovirus, and salmonella bacteria"(Charles). This is not only relevant in military settings but also applies to the natural infectious diseases that citizens face. With these techniques, scientists can make vaccines against a wider variety of diseases available to the general public. With the knowledge and experience gained from vaccine-making for biological weapon defense programs, researchers were able to develop the “fastest vaccine in history” to combat COVID-19 using the technologies of viral vectors, messenger RNA and protein subunits (Cohen). Without the development of the COVID-19 vaccine, the pandemic would most likely have lasted much longer and caused more mortality and severe repercussions. This breakthrough likely would not have been achieved without the solid groundwork established by the thorough study conducted on bioweapons during the Cold War.

Additionally, biological weapons research induced novel breakthroughs in genetic engineering that not only were of use to armies but also set the groundwork for further innovations that continue to benefit society today. The concept of editing the genome first arose after scientists James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the double-helix structure of DNA in 1953. Afterward, the feat was first achieved in bacteria, when Biochemists Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen inserted DNA from one bacterium into another in 1973 ("Science and History"). The potential of the newly established technology was enormous in biological weapons research. During the last stages of the Cold War, the Soviet Union began conducting genetic engineering experiments to produce more potent bioweapons. Microbiologists have realized the possibility of using this technology “to enhance antibiotic resistance of pathogens and their virulence, make them harder to detect, diagnose and treat” (Ho). For instance, Dr Kenneth Alibek, former biological warfare program Soviet Biopreparet chief scientist, mentioned in an interview that the Soviet Union was able to develop a “new class of weapons based on genetically modified agents” in the 1980s, specifically antibiotic-resistant strains of plague, anthrax, tularemia, and glanders. The program was also able to create the 836 strain of anthrax – the most formidable biological weapon of its time – described by Alibek as "extremely virulent, stable in aerosol form, and persistent in the environment"(Alibek). Genetic engineering enables researchers to manipulate the genome of biological agents to develop more potent and effective strains for use as weapons. This was very appealing to countries seeking to achieve dominance or gain advantages during the Cold War. This technology, formerly associated with biological warfare, now influences daily life via applications such as genetically modified crops and medications developed through gene editing.

By contrast, critics who undermine the widespread impact of bioweapons research might argue that the advancements during the Cold War were largely confined to military applications with limited usage for the rest of society. They believe that those research programs’ main aim was to create weapons for offensive purposes that have little to no impact on the general public. Indeed, the Soviet Union “had the most efficient, sophisticated, and powerful offensive BW program in the world” that could “destroy any country several times over”(Alibek). This indicates the main focus of one of the largest bioweapons research programs at the time of the Cold War – to develop formidable military offensive capabilities and cause mass destruction. Even with its ample resources, creating innovations that can benefit society are often secondary considerations, if considered at all. However, another larger side of this research should not be ignored. The Army’s Record of Decision, as stated in the Federal Register, claimed that the research done by the BDRP not only enhances national security but also contributes to the scientific community at large as well as benefiting people worldwide by giving them access to diagnostic procedures, vaccinations, and medication treatments for illnesses (Charles). While the primary aim of these research programs might be for offensive military purposes, the research started to move towards areas more relevant to civilians by the end of the Cold War. On November 25, 1969, President Nixon renounced all usage of bioweapons and stopped the offense bioweapons research program, saying, “the United States will confine its biological research to defensive measures such as immunization and safety measures” (“Foreign Relations”). More advanced and thoroughly researched immunization and safety measures not only benefit military personnel but also enhance public health, suggesting that these programs have broader implications outside the military. In addition, though the purpose of bioweapons research programs was to strengthen national security, the advancements they caused have broader implications for citizens’ well-being beyond military affairs. Vaccines that were created to protect soldiers against biological threats later played a crucial part in all citizens’ lives, protecting them from naturally occurring viruses and diseases. Vaccination saves as much as 4 million lives around the world annually (“Fast Facts”). Studying biowarfare also changed the way people respond to pandemics. For instance, with the knowledge accumulated through the research of biological warfare, people were able to accurately respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and successfully control the virus before it could cause more harm. Genetic engineering, first developed during the Cold War, has the potential to save the lives of people suffering from crippling genetic diseases such as sickle cell disease, congenital blindness, H.I.V, etc. (Urnov). CRISPR, a gene engineering technique, can also be used for agricultural purposes to modify food, making it cheaper, easier to produce in mass quantities, more resistant to disease, have higher nutritional value, and so on (Phillips). The possibility of using this technology to boost peoples’ lives is endless. This reveals that bioweapons research not only impacts military aspects but also significantly affects contemporary life of the general public.

In conclusion, the legacy of bioweapons research during the Cold War extended far beyond its time, inspiring scientific advancements that greatly improved the quality of life today. Breakthroughs exploded in microbiology, virology, and genetic engineering – just to name a few. This contributed to the development of vaccines, biological agent detection methods, lab protocols, gene therapy techniques, and more. The example of how bioweapons research positively impacted people reflected the dual sides of any event – in this case, research of weapons of annihilation can save millions of lives later in time.

Works Cited

Alibek, Kenneth. Interview. Conducted by Jonathan B. Tucker. Biological Weapons in the Former Soviet Union: An Interview with Dr. Kenneth Alibek, www.nonproliferation.org/wp-content/uploads/npr/alibek63.pdf. Accessed 19 Feb. 2024.

Charles F. Dasey. "Medical Benefits of the Biological Defense Research Program." Politics and the Life Sciences, vol. 9, no. 1, 1990, pp. 77–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4235719. Accessed 19 Feb. 2024.

Cohen, Sandy. "The fastest vaccine in history." UCLA Health, 10 Dec. 2020, www.uclahealth.org/news/the-fastest-vaccine-in-history. Accessed 19 Feb. 2024.

DaSilva, Edgar J. "Biological warfare, bioterrorism, biodefence and the biological and toxin weapons convention." Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, vol. 2, no. 3, 15 Dec. 1999. SciELO, http://doi.org/10.4067/S0717-34581999000300001. Accessed 19 Feb. 2024.

"Fast Facts on Global Immunization." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 20 Apr. 2023, www.cdc.gov/globalhealth/immunization/data/fast-facts.html. Accessed 26 Feb. 2024.

"Foreign Relations, 1969-1976, Volume E-2, Documents on Arms Control, 1969-1972." U.S. Department of State, 20 Jan. 2001, 2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/frus/nixon/e2/83597.htm. Accessed 26 Feb. 2024.

"Fort Detrick." U.S. Army, home.army.mil/detrick/about/history. Accessed 19 Feb. 2024.

Ho, Mae-Wan. "Genetic Engineering and Bioweapons." Word file.

Meyer, R.F., and S.A. Morse. "Viruses and Bioterrorism." Encyclopedia of Virology (2008): 406–411. doi:10.1016/B978-012374410-4.00549-5

Paessler, Slobodan, and Scott C Weaver. "Vaccines for Venezuelan equine encephalitis." Vaccine vol. 27 Suppl 4 (2009): D80-5. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.07.095

Phillips, T. (2008) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs): Transgenic crops and recombinant DNA technology. Nature Education 1(1):213

"Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes." FDA, 19 Apr. 2023, www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/science-and-history-gmos-and-other-food-modification-processes. Accessed 19 Feb. 2024.

Urnov, Fyodor. "We Can Cure Disease by Editing a Person's DNA. Why Aren't We?" The New York Times, 9 Dec. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/12/09/opinion/crispr-gene-editing-cures.html. Accessed 26 Feb. 2024.

Walt, David R., and David R. Franz. "Biological Warfare Detection." Analytical Chemistry, pp. 738 A-746 A, https://doi.org/10.1021/ac003002a. Accessed 19 Feb. 2024.