home << newsletters << October 2003 index << Reducing the Threat
 

Newsletter:  October 2003/ Issue 5
Reducing the Threat of Chemical and Biological Weapons

by Todd Peterson, PNWCGS Staff

Following the catastrophe of September 11, 2001 but before the anthrax mailings to the Senate office building, Dr. Barbara Seiders, Director of Chemical and Biological Defense Research at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), gave a talk on the threat of an attack with biological agents. Speaking about the security of the Hanford Site and the Laboratory, she said prevailing sunny, dry and windy conditions argued against a successful attack with biological weapons, specifically via an aerosol released from an airplane, the most likely scenario. Then, a terrorist delivered anthrax spores through the mail, and everyone’s preconceptions had to be reassessed.

“The fundamental problem,” Seiders noted recently, “is that the threat of biological and chemical agents is limited only by a terrorist’s imagination and skills. It’s a wide-open threat. In one sense protecting against a chemical or biological attack is like protecting against crime in general.”

In the Fall 2000 edition of PNNL’s Breakthroughs magazine, Seiders described the threat from chemical and biological weapons as “far from new.”

“Dangerous chemicals and disease-causing biological organisms have been used in conflict for centuries. But these weapons didn’t get a lot of attention during the Cold War because they were far less devastating than nuclear weapons. With the progress of nuclear disarmament in recent years, the international community could focus on the next most serious threats—including chemical and biological weapons. Only a small number of countries have nuclear weapons, and we keep an eye on those who have the means to acquire them. Chemical and biological weapons are more accessible—you don’t need complex facilities or large teams of highly technical scientists and engineers. They’re easy to manufacture and easy to hide, so it’s a broader risk, but the threat has always been serious,” she said.

But since the anthrax attack important changes have occurred in our ability to respond.

“The most powerful change,” she points out, “is the increased awareness and sensitivity of the public. Education and general awareness are extremely important.” Medical clinicians have received specialized training. She identifies clinicians as our “first line of defense in the event of an attack with biological agents.” And heightened awareness has certain other benefits. “Smart clinicians” she said, “spotted SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome).”

PNNL scientists, Seiders emphasizes, continue to respond with intense research in chemical and biological sensors and monitors, including projects involving detection, personnel protection and decontamination. For example, PNNL’s Bob Wright, whom Seiders calls “an unsung hero,” has worked for years to improve detection of traces of chemical agents and the sensitivities of detection methods. Don Hadley in the Lab’s building sciences program is working to answer the question, “What do you do if your building comes under a biological or chemical attack?” Chris Aardahl, a member of the Advanced Processing and Applications group, is evaluating the use of a hybrid plasma reactor filter system installed in-line with ventilation to purify air contaminated by chemical or biological agents. And, PNNL scientist Genia Rainina, Jim Wild at Texas A&M and Bill Rigby of Encapsulation Technologies, are developing enzymatic and other decontamination solutions for use in an aerosol fog to degrade chemical and biological agents.

Seiders comes to this work directing chemical and biological defense research from at the Army Chemical Research Development and Engineering Center and as Chief of Research at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). When at ACDA she was particularly concerned about Soviet non-compliance with chemical and biological arms control treaties. She served as science advisor to Ambassador Jim Goodby, who negotiated the framework for the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program aimed at safe, secure dismantlement of nuclear weapons. Since joining PNNL, she has led the Detection and Characterization of Biological Pathogens initiative.

In her interview with Breakthroughs, Seiders said, “I started government service as a Diplomacy Fellow from the American Association for the Advancement of Science in the State Department. Although I was assigned to work issues of nuclear nonproliferation, my colleagues knew that I was a chemist, so they routed all the chemical and biological cables to me to read. In the early 1980s, we were trying to find out what agents were being used to kill people in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. I read countless reports of refugees from Laos and Cambodia describing loved ones dying of terrible hemorrhagic diseases after being exposed to clouds and mists sprayed over their villages. I found out some years later that many of these refugees were mothers describing how their young children had died in their arms. Those children are why I have stayed in this field.”

Today, Seiders and her PNNL colleagues remain deeply involved in researching, developing, and testing sensors and monitors for defending the U.S. from chemical and biological weapons. An important challenge is aligning requirements for detection with technology development and deployment. Biodetection tools now include nucleic acid amplification, immunoassay, mass spectrometry, gene chip arrays, and cultures. Seiders says it is possible to match particular detection technologies with specific potential threats to reduce exposure. She says the development of new biodetectors should be guided by the needs of the military, first responders, those responsible for the security of government facilities and others. However, technology users, “want 24/7/365 monitoring against all possible threats, but monitoring to that extent with existing technologies is enormously expensive. We have to get smarter about how we’re spending our money. We have a moral obligation to make sure detectors do what they should.”