Using genetics in biowarfare

[ChanelR]

Hi there,

 

I want to discuss a bit of a dark topic - biowarfare.

As you are likely to be aware, genes can sometimes have polymorphisms. i.e. A different form of the gene due to the substitution of a different amino acid at a certain position on the gene.

In some cases, certain ethnic groups are more likely to have a higher frequency of one polymorph than another, such that the population skews toward one polymorph.

 

For example, the enzyme paraoxonase is responsible for hydrolysing the metabolite oxons of toxic organophosphate compounds such as chlorpyrifos oxon and diazoxon.

One of the major polymorphs of this gene is the Q192R alloform, where either a glutamine (Q) or arginine ® is substituted at position 192 on the 355 amino acid sequence.

Different polymorphs are better at hydrolysing different substrates.

Different populations have different polymorphs.

 

If one were to target a population in a biowarfare event, knowing which polymorph your population is likely to have makes it easier to pick your weapon of choice.

 

For example, the Q192 polymorph is the more effective alloform (by 10x) for hydrolysing sarin gas.

Caucasian Europeans are 75% likely to have the Q192 polymorph. Asians on the other hand, only 33%.

In Tokyo, 1995, a sarin gas terrorist attack took place on a subway.

Overwhelmed with toxicity, the Asians had died.

 

Are we overlooking some devious geniuses?

[Moontanman]

Unless your war was racist in nature I can't see how this would be helpful....

[Iota]

This seems to be a recurring concern expressed across the internet. There's a new piece of technology that targets cancer specific genes and turns off the malignant cells. Sounds great, right? But then I scroll down to the comments section to see people discussing how it could be weaponised to target genes belonging primarily to certain ethnicities and them out.

 

I personally think there are many flaws in that plan. Where did you hear about the idea? Or did the thought just come to you?

[ChanelR]

It's not necessarily racist, but I guess it could be. It's really about targeting an area. In the same way, if one knew the genetic weaknesses of a population living anywhere in the world, then selecting an effective bioweapon becomes easier. (To twist the tale, since 75% of caucasian Europeans have the Q192 alloform, then being exposed to acute chlorpyrifos toxicity would be more harmful than exposure to, say, diazoxon.)

 

I'm currently writing up on the varying efficacies of paraoxonase polymorphisms in organophosphate detoxification. I'm looking at it from an ecology perspective, focusing on bird species. I came across the sarin gas incident, and several gulf war syndrome cases.

 

Just made me wonder about all that information available in the public domain.

Edited August 30, 2012 by ChanelR

[Moontanman]

It's not necessarily racist, but I guess it could be. It's really about targeting an area. In the same way, if one knew the genetic weaknesses of a population living anywhere in the world, then selecting an effective bioweapon becomes easier. (To twist the tale, since 75% of caucasian Europeans have the Q192 alloform, then being exposed to acute chlorpyrifos toxicity would be more harmful than exposure to, say, diazoxon.)

 

I'm currently writing up on the varying efficacies of paraoxonase polymorphisms in organophosphate detoxification. I'm looking at it from an ecology perspective, focusing on bird species. I came across the sarin gas incident, and several gulf war syndrome cases.

 

Just made me wonder about all that information available in the public domain.

 

 

Even if you could make a case that such a weapon that targets specific groups of people was not racist it's usefulness would be limited unless you intended to kill everyone non combatants included and only if everyone you were fighting shared the same vulnerability which again would seem to indicate some sort of racial component.

 

Despicable would seem to the best description of such a weapon, monstrous would be more accurate...

[dmaiski]

fundamentaly the key to most warfare is control, genetics in this respect is ideal, it allows accurate, targeted approach to the target. well at least if you know who your target is.

 

lets say you have a DNA sample of [insert silly name here] and want them dead. you design an organism with a receptor for their particular cell surface proteins, then unload an airborne version of [deadly disease causing bacterium] targeted to their specific genes over the city they are in, if its a contact vector type bacterium you will eventualy get them once they touch something that was outside during the seeding procedure.

 

in an ideal world yes genetics is the most wonderful weapon you can imagine, but, and there always a but, genetic engineering hasen't progressed far enough that such designer bioweapons can be made, nor is the production cheap, nor is it nearly as effective and well thought out.

 

in the end we have a long time to wait till we have any fears of bioWARFARE, we do have a problem though with bioTERRORISM. someone stupid enough to make a bioweapon these days will make it without any selectivity, controll, or any way to really clean up after themselves after their weapon has inevitably screwed up and either failed to have any real effect(till it comes back 10 years down the line as the new and improved superbug(not saying any disease was a bioweapon, nature can be nasty as well)) or they have infected half the world and killed the other half(including themselves in the process)

 

simply put 99.9% of human DNA dosen't vary between one person and the next and humans are quite numerous so if you use genetics your bound to have world wide collateral damage, well unless you are a super genius with an iq of 200 and idiot savant level of obsession over bioweaponry, but I havent met any of those around here.