Abstract: Abstract Military interest in incapacitating biochemical weapons has grown in recent years as advances in science and technology have appeared to offer the promise of new "non-lethal" weapons useful for a variety of politically and militarily challenging situations. There is, in fact, a long and unfulfilled history of attempts to develop such weapons. It is clear that advances are opening up a range of possibilities for future biological and chemical weapons more generally. The treaties prohibiting biological and chemical weapons make no distinction between lethal and "non-lethal" weapons—all are equally prohibited. Indeed, a sharp and technically meaningful distinction between lethal and "non-lethal" biological and chemical weapons is beyond the capability of science to make. Thus, interest in incapacitating biochemical weapons, and efforts on the part of various states to develop them, pose a significant challenge to the treaty regimes, to the norms against biological and chemical warfare that they embody, and, ultimately, to the essential protections that they provide. Preventing a new generation of biological and chemical weapons from emerging will take concerted efforts and action at the local, national, and international levels. Keywords: Biological weaponsChemical weaponsBiochemical weaponsChemical incapacitating agentsNon-lethal weaponsArms controlFentanyl Notes 1. Committee on Advances in Technology and the Prevention of Their Application to Next Generation Biowarfare Threats, Board on Global Medicine, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, Globalization, Biosecurity and the Future of the Life Sciences (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006), p. 5. See also pp. 178–181 and references at notes 141, 144, and 150 on p. 208 of this report. 2. Elliot Kagan, "Bioregulators as Instruments of Terror," Clinics in Laboratory Medicine 21 (Sept. 2001), pp. 607–618. 3. 3 U.S. Army, Potential Military Chemical/Biological Agents and Compounds, Field Manual 3-11.9, Jan. 10, 2005, p. I–7, <www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-11-9.pdf>. 4. Sweden stated that by the year 2000, the "scientific and technological achievements … may make it possible to produce products of human origin as B-weapons. Such products could be hormones or transmitter substances which to take effect are needed in extremely small quantities." Background Document on New Scientific and Technological Development Relevant to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction," BWC/CONF.II/4, Geneva, Sept.r 8–26, 1986, p. 3, <www.opbw.org>. The United States, discussing peptides, stated that "[t]heir range of activity covers the entire living system, from mental processes … to many aspects of health such as control of mood, consciousness, temperature control, sleep or emotions, exerting regulatory effects on the body. Even a small imbalance in these natural substances could have serious consequences, inducing fear, fatigue, depression or even causing death." BWC/CONF.II/4, Add.2, p. 3, <www.opbw.org>. 5. National Academies of Science, Press Release, Jan. 31, 2006, "Global Effort Needed to Anticipate and Prevent Potential Misuse of Advances in Life Science," <www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11567>. 6. Kurt Kleiner, "US 'unaware' of emerging bioterror threats," New Scientist.com News Service, Jan. 31, 2006, <www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8656>; Emily Singer, "Could Terrorists Hijack Your Brain?" Technology Review (Feb. 1, 2006), <www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16221&ch=biotech>. 7. Executive Office of the President, Biodefense for the 21st Century, Homeland Security Presidential Directive 10/National Security Presidential Directive 33, Washington, DC, April 28, 2004, <www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/hspd-10.html>. 8. Christopher J. Davis, "Nuclear Blindness: An Overview of the Biological Weapons Programs of the Former Soviet Union and Iraq," Emerging Infectious Diseases 5 (July–Aug. 1999), pp. 509–512. 9. Committee for an Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons Science and Technology, Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, An Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons Science and Technology (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2003), p. 4. 10. Paul M. Wax, Charles E. Becker, and Steven C. Curry, "Unexpected 'Gas' Casualties in Moscow: A Medical Toxicology Perspective," Annals of Emergency Medicine 41 (Aug. 2003) pp. 700–705. 11. See Neil Davison and Nick Lewer, Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project Research Report No. 5, (Bradford, UK: Centre for Conflict Resolution, University of Bradford, May 2004), p. 39, <www.bradford.ac.uk/acad/nlw/research_reports/docs/BNLWRPResearchReportNo5_May04.pdf>. 12. Donald Voet, Biochemistry, 3rd ed. (New York: Wiley, 2004), p. 13. 13. Eva S. Istvan and Johann Deisenhofer, "Structural Mechanism for Statin Inhibition of HMG-CoA Reductase," Science 292 (May 11, 2001), pp. 1160–1164. 14. Bruce D. Roth, "The Discovery and Development of Atorvastatin, a Potent Novel Hypolipidemic Agent," Progress in Medicinal Chemistry 40 (2002), pp. 1–22. For sales data see IMS Health, "Leading Products by Global Sales, 2005," at <www.imshealth.com/ims/portal/front/articleC/0,2777,6599_77478579_77479663,00.html>. 15. Field Manual 3-11.9, p. I–6. 16. James S. Ketchum and Frederick R. Sidell, "Incapacitating Agents," in Frederick R. Sidell, Ernest T. Takafugi, and David R. Franz, eds., Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, TMM series, Part I (Washington, DC: TMM Publications, 1997), p. 288. 17. Field Manual 3-11.9, p. I–6. 18. U.S. Army Field Manual 8-285, Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries, (Dec. 22, 1995), P. 3–1, available at <www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/8-285/index.html>. 19. U.S. Army Field Manual 8-285, Treatment of Chemical Agent Casualties and Conventional Military Chemical Injuries, (Dec. 22, 1995), P. 3–1, available at <www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/army/fm/8-285/index.html>. 20. See information for Remifentanil at "Opioids" at <www.anaesthetist.com/anaes/drugs/opioids.htm>. 21. Ketchum and Sidell, "Incapacitating Agents," p. 291. 22. Ketchum and Sidell, "Incapacitating Agents," p. 291. For TL 2636 see Caitriona McLeish, "The Governance of Dual-Use Technologies in Chemical Warfare," M.Sc. dissertation, University of Sussex, 1997, pp. 55–65. 23. Joan M. Lakoski, W. Bosseau Murray, and John M. Kenny, The Advantages and Limitations of Calmatives for Use as a Non-Lethal Technique (University Park, PA: Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, 2000), p. 48. 24. Martin Furmanski, "Military Interest in Low-lethality Biochemical Agents: The Historical Interaction of Advocates, Experts, Pragmatists and Politicians," (June 2005), p. 19, <www.armscontrolcenter.org/cbw/symposium/papers/pdf/20050601_symposium_military_interest.pdf>. 25. Furmanski, "Military Interest;" See also: Malcolm Dando, "The UK's Search for an Incapacitating ('Non-Lethal') Chemical Agent in the 1960s," Bradford Science and Technology Report No. 6 (Bradford, UK: Dept. of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, Jan. 2006); <www.brad.ac.uk/acad/nlw/research_reports/docs/BDRC_ST_Report_No_6.pdf>; Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare (New York: Humanities Press, 1971), Vol. 2, pp. 124, 154, 265, 273, and Vol. 5, pp. 47–49, 127–128; J. P Perry Robinson, "Disabling chemical weapons: some technical and historical aspects," paper delivered to the Second Workshop of the Pugwash Study Group on Implementation of the CBW Conventions, Den Haag/Noordwijk, Netherlands, May 27–29, 1994. 26. U.S. Dept. of Defense, Directive 3000.3 Policy for Non-Lethal Weapons (July 9, 1996), p. 2. 27. Lt. Col. Randy Copeland, "Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program," (June 2002), slide 2, <www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002mines/copeland.pdf>. U.S. Marine Corps, "Joint Concept for Non-Lethal Weapons" (Jan. 5, 1988), available at <www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/NONLETH.HTM>. 28. Naval Studies Board, An Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons, pp. 12–15, 20, 26, and 27. See also US/UK Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW)/Urban Operations Executive Seminar Assessment Report (Nov. 30, 2000), p. 28, at <www.sunshine-project.org/incapacitants/jnlwdpdf/usukassess.pdf>; U.S. Marine Corps, "Joint Concept"; Nick Lewer, "Introduction" in Nick Lewer, ed., The Future of Non-Lethal Weapons: Technologies, Operations, Ethics and Law (London/Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 2002), p. 1; Brian Rappert, Non-Lethal Weapons as Legitimizing Forces? (London/Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 2003), pp. 63–65, 228–234. 29. U.S. Marine Corps, "Joint Concept." For in depth information about, and arguments for and against, "nonlethal" weapons more generally, see John B. Alexander, Future War: Non-Lethal Weapons in 21st Century Warfare (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1999); Graham T. Allison, Paul X. Kelley, and Richard L. Garwin, Non-lethal Weapons and Capabilities, Report of an Independent Task Force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 2004); Malcolm Dando, A New Form of Warfare: The Rise of Non-Lethal Weapons (London: Brassey's, 1996); Lewer, The Future of Non-Lethal Weapons; Douglas C. Lovelace and Steven Metz, Nonlethality and American Land Power (Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 1998); Rappert, Non-Lethal Weapons. 30. Ketchum and Sidell, "Incapacitating Agents," p. 295. Compare to value for VX in Table 30-2 in David R. Franz, "Defense Against Toxin Weapons," in Sidell,. Takafugi, and Franz, Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare, p. 607. 31. Malcolm Dando and Martin Furmanski, "Midspectrum Incapacitant Programs," in Mark Wheelis, Lajos Rozsa, and Malcolm Dando, eds., Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), pp. 246–249. 32. Malcolm Dando and Martin Furmanski, "Midspectrum Incapacitant Programs," in Mark Wheelis, Lajos Rozsa, and Malcolm Dando, eds., Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), pp. 246–249. 33. Malcolm Dando and Martin Furmanski, "Midspectrum Incapacitant Programs," in Mark Wheelis, Lajos Rozsa, and Malcolm Dando, eds., Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), p. 243. 34. Ketchum and Sidell, "Incapacitating Agents," p. 295. 35. Jean Pascal Zanders, "Assessing the Risk of Chemical and Biological Weapons Proliferation to Terrorists," Nonproliferation Review 6 (Fall 1999), pp. 23–25. 36. Furmanski, "Military Interest," p. 19. 37. John M. Kenny, "Human Effects Advisory Panel Program," presentation at the Non-Lethal Defense IV Conference, sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association, March 20–22, 2000, slide 23, <www.dtic.mil/ndia/nld4/kenny.pdf>. 38. Lynn Klotz, Martin Furmanski, and Mark Wheelis, "Beware the Siren's Song: Why 'Non-Lethal' Incapacitating Chemical Agents are Lethal," Scientists Working Group on Biological and Chemical Weapons, March 2003, <www.armscontrolcenter.org/cbw/wg/wg/wg_2003_sirensong_nonlethal_chemical_agents.pdf>. 39. V.L. Klochikhin, A.A. Lushnikov, V.A. Zagaynov, A.V. Putilov, V.V. Selivanov, and M.A. Zatevakhin, "Principles of Modeling of the Scenario of Calmative Application in a Building With Deterred Hostages," paper presented to the 3rd European Symposium on Non-Lethal Weapons, Stadthalle, Germany, May 10–12, 2005. 40. L.E. Mather, "Clinical pharmacokinetics of fentanyl and its newer derivatives," Clinical Pharmacokinetics 8 (Sept.–Oct. 1983), pp. 422–46; Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Program, "The Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis: Incapacitants and Chemical Warfare," (Nov. 4, 2002) <http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/02110b.htm>. 41. Wax et al., "Unexpected 'Gas' Casualties." 42. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, "Outlook 2005," p. 1, <http://csdd.tufts.edu/InfoServices/OutlookPDFs/Outlook2005.pdf>. 43. On the use of anesthesia in clinical settings, see, for example, David A.E. Shephard, "The changing pattern of anesthesia, 1954–004: A review based on the content of the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia in its first half-century," Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 52 (March 2005), pp. 238–248. 44. See, for example, Roche Pharmaceuticals, "Versed (midazolam HCl) Injection," package insert, <www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Mar01/032101/cp00001_exhibit_02.pdf>; Bedford Laboratories, "Propofol Injectable Emulsion 1%," package insert, <http://66.70.89.95/information/propofol.pdf>. 45. Alan S. Nies, "Principles of Therapeutics," in Joel G. Hardman and Lee E. Limbird, eds., Goodman and Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 10th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2001), p. 51. 46. See, for example, Ketchum and Sidell, "Incapacitating Agents," p. 296. 47. Nies, "Principles of Therapeutics," p. 48. 48. The principle of individualized treatment is the result of extensive clinical experience with the use of powerful pharmaceutical agents such as anesthetics. 49. Klochikhin et al., "Principles of Modeling," arrive at the following important conclusion on the basis of their study: "If the level of 95% efficiency is absolutely required to neutralize terrorists and to prevent mass destruction, there is no chance to eliminate hard consequences and fatalities. Calculations show that the majority of hostages can get serious poisoning and part of them—fatality. This is the cost of releasing if no other solutions left," p. 3. See also, Furmanski, and Wheelis, "Siren's Song," p. 4. 50. Guy Gugliotta, "U.S. Finds Hurdles in Search for Nonlethal Gas," Washington Post, Nov. 1, 2002, p. A30, quoting C. Parker Ferguson. In 1994, U.S. Army researchers had this to say about the problem: "For many scenarios the desired characteristics of chemical immobilizers are similar to these depicted in James Bond films. In fiction, a chemical agent knocks out people instantaneously. In reality the onset time for immobilization or unconsciousness takes longer, even when deploying the most potent anesthetic materials known. For other scenarios, a delayed onset or a less severe degree of immobilization may be desired. The other myth usually associated with stereotypical immobilizers is rapid recovery and lack of side effects." See Edgewood Research, Development & Engineering Center (hereafter ERDEC), "Demonstration of Chemical Immobilizers," Research Proposal , April 27, 1994, <www.sunshine-project.org/incapacitants/jnlwdpdf/edgedemon.pdf>. 51. This list of requirements summarizes information synthesized from a wide variety of sources. For some particular requirements, see the following: Lakoski, Murray, and Kenny, Advantages and Disadvantages, p. 5; Naval Studies Board, Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons, pp. 22, 27, and 107; Ketchum and Sidell, "Incapacitating Agents," p. 288; U.S. Army Field Manual 8-825, p. 3–1. The last three requirements are of particular importance according to the committee of the Naval Studies Board: "Major research and development … issues involving the use of calmatives are (1) the quantification of the effectiveness and margin of safety for these materials and (2) the development of the method of delivery that can rapidly provide the appropriate dose." The committee added: "to elicit the desired level of mood alteration without causing a dangerous level of respiratory depression … requires a tight control on dose level," p. 27. See also their comment on p. 107: "Few reliable, low-risk, and low-cost methods exist for delivering and dispensing chemical NLWs precisely and accurately. This capacity … becomes critical in the delivery of calmatives, where proper doses must be achieved." The committee recommended the development of microencapsulation to create more deliverable forms of incapacitants and sensor systems to achieve accurate delivery on target at the proper dose level. Weapons developer C. Parker Ferguson said that "major challenges remained to developing an incapacitant both potent enough to be effective and safe enough to be used," stating "[i]t's often a tradeoff." Quoted in David Ruppe, "New Research Offers Safer Incapacitating Chemicals," Global Security Newswire, Nov. 6, 2002, <http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/newswires/2002_11_6.html#7>. 52. Klotz et al., Beware the Siren's Song. 53. Mark Wheelis and Malcolm Dando, "Neurobiology: A case study of the imminent militarization of biology," International Review of the Red Cross 87 (Sept. 2005), p. 561. See also Malcolm R. Dando, "The Danger to the Chemical Weapons Convention from Incapacitating Chemicals," First CWC Review Conference Paper Number 4 (Bradford, UK: Dept. of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, March 2003), pp. 5, 11. 54. See entry for "Acetylcholine receptors, muscarinic" at the IUPHAR Receptor Database, <www.iuphar-db.org/GPCR/index.html>. 55. For reviews of some of these important developments, see Robert J. Lefkowitz, "Historical review: a brief history and personal retrospective of seven-transmembrane receptors," Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 25 (Aug. 2004), pp. 413–422; Soloman H. Snyder and Gavril W. Pasternak, "Historical overview: Opioid receptors," Trends in Pharmacological Sciences 24 (April 2003), pp. 198–205; Mark S. Boguski and Allan R. Jones, "Neurogenomics: at the intersection of neurobiology and genome sciences," Nature Neuroscience 7 (May 2004), pp. 429–433; Seth G. N. Grant, "Systems biology in neuroscience: Bridging genes to cognition," Current Opinion in Neurobiology 13 (Oct. 2003), pp. 577–582. 56. Mark Wheelis, "Biotechnology and Biochemical Weapons," Nonproliferation Review 9 (Spring 2002), pp. 48–53. For example, Committee on Advances, Globalization, Biosecurity"; Richard Kramer and Dalia Cohen, "Functional Genomics to New Drug Targets," Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 3 (Nov. 2004), pp. 965–972. 57. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Innovation or Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products (Washington DC, March 2004), <www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.html>. 58. Robinson, "Disabling Chemical Weapons"; J.P. Perry Robinson, "Disabling Chemical Weapons: A Documentary Chronology of Events, 1945–2003," unpublished working paper, Harvard Sussex Program, University of Sussex, Nov. 1, 2003 (hereafter Robinson Chronology); David Brown and Peter Baker, "Moscow gas likely a potent narcotic," Washington Post, Nov. 11, 2002, p. A12; Naval Studies Board, Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons, pp. 63–64. The author is indebted to J.P. Perry Robinson for sharing his documentary chronology, which provides by far the most complete account of publicly available information on attempts to develop and use incapacitants between 1945 and 2003. 59. The WorldWide Anaesthetist Web Site, "Opioids," <www.anaesthetist.com/anaes/drugs/opioids.htm>. 60. P.L. Bailey, J. Wilbrink, P. Zwanikken, N.L. Pace, and T.H. Stanley, "Anesthetic induction with fentanyl," Anesthesia and Analgesia 64 (Jan. 1985), pp. 48–53. 61. Ketchum and Sidell, "Incapacitating Agents," p. 293; Dando and Furmanski, "Midspectrum Incapacitants"; McLeish, "Governance"; Robinson Chronology. 62. Taylor Pharmaceuticals, "Sufenta (Sufentanil Citrate) Injection," package insert, <www.akorn.com/documents/catalog/package_inserts/11098-050-01.pdf>. The package insert states, "As with all potent opioids, profound analgesia is accompanied by respiratory depression … which may persist into or recur in the postoperative period." See also note 69. 63. Mather, "Clinical pharmacokinetics." 64. W.F. Van Bever, C.J. Niemegeers, K.H. Schellekens, and P.A. Janssen, "N-4-Substituted 1-(2-arylethyl)-4-piperidinyl-N-phenylpropanamides, a novel series of extremely potent analgesics with unusually high safety margin," Arzneimittel-forshung 26 (1976), pp. 1548–1551. 65. Thomas Stanley, "Human immobilization: Is the experience in Moscow just the beginning?" European Journal of Anaesthesiology 20 (June 2003), pp. 427–428. 66. ERDEC, "Synthetic Opioids"; see also Brian D. Anderson and Patrick M. Grant, "Dose Safety Margin Enhancement for Chemical Incapacitation and Less-Than-Lethal Targeting," NIJ (National Institute of Justice) Final Report (Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Jan. 1997); Lois Pilant, "Less-than-Lethal Weapons: New Solutions for Law Enforcement," Science and Technology, publication of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (Dec. 1993), p. 3, reporting a safety ratio of 4 for alfentanil in the operating room. The source for this figure is unknown. 67. For example, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, "The Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis: Incapacitants and Chemical Warfare," <http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/02110b.htm>. 68. Van Bever et al., "Novel series"; C.J. Niemegeers, K.H. Schellekens, W.F. Van Bever, and P.A. Janssen, "Sufentanil, a very potent and extremely safe intravenous morphine-like compound in mice, rats and dogs," Arzneimittel-forschung 26 (1976), pp. 1551–1556. The WorldWide Anaesthetist Web Site, "Opioids"; Taylor Pharmaceuticals, "Sufenta." 69. J. de Castro, A. Van de Water, L. Wouters, R. Xhonneux, R. Reneman, and B. Kay, "Comparative study of cardiovascular, neurological and metabolic side effects of 8 narcotics in dogs," Act Anaesthesiologica Belgica 30 (March 1979), pp. 55–69; see also Klotz et al., Beware the Siren's Song, p. 7; Secretary of the Army, "Opiate analgesic formulation with improved safety," U.S. Patent Number 5834477, Nov. 10, 1998, <www.patentstorm.us/patents/5834477-fulltext.html>; The WorldWide Anaesthetist Web Site, Opioids." Extensive clinical experience demonstrates that the fentanyls can have significant adverse effects in a substantial portion of patients when used at doses required for anesthesia, and even at doses required for analgesia. They are considered safe in hospital settings because dosages can be individualized and for the reasons discussed in the text. One authoritative source has this to say: "SUFENTA (sufentanil citrate) SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED ONLY BY PERSONS SPECIFICALLY TRAINED IN THE USE OF INTRAVENOUS AND EPIDURAL ANESTHETICS AND MANAGEMENT OF THE RESPIRATORY EFFECTS OF POTENT OPIOIDS. AN OPIOID ANTAGONIST, RESUSCITATIVE AND INTUBATION EQUIPMENT AND OXYGEN SHOULD BE READILY AVAILABLE." (Emphasis in original.) Taylor Pharmaceuticals, "Sufenta." 70. Karen S. Kearns, Brent Swenson, and Edward C. Ramsay, "Dosage trials with transmucosal carfentanil citrate in non-human primates," Zoo Biology 18 (Jan. 24, 2000), pp. 397–402. 71. L.E. Mather, A. Woodhouse, M.E. Ward, S.J. Farr, R.A. Rubsamen, and L.G. Eltherington, "Pulmonary administration of aerosolised fentanyl: Pharmacokinetic analysis of systemic delivery," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 46 (July 1998), pp. 37–43. 72. Franz, "Defense Against Toxin Weapons," p. 607. 73. Stanley, "Human immobilization." 74. ERDEC, "Opioids"; Naval Studies Board, An Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons, p. 27. 75. U.S. Patent Number 5834477. 76. Snyder and Pasternak, "Opioid receptors"; Robinson Chronology, entry for Nov. 13, 1990. 77. Robinson Chronology, entry for Jan. 1992. 78. ERDEC, "Opioids." 79. ERDEC, "Chemical Immobilizers." 80. Anderson and Grant, "Dose Safety Margin Enhancement." 81. John Lancaster, "Pentagon, Justice Dept. Set Plans for Sharing Non-Lethal Technology," Washington Post, March 23, 1994, p. A3. See also U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice, NIJ Research Plan 1995–1996 (Washington, DC: Dept. of Justice, 1995), p. 20, regarding Memorandum of Agreement signed with the Dept. of Defense. Cooperation is ongoing, including with the Dept. of Homeland Security. See Trent DePersia "Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency," presentation dated Jan. 25, 2004, <www.hsarpabaa.com/main/HBCU/9_DePersia.pdf>. 82. Mark Wheelis, "'Nonlethal' Chemical Weapons: A Faustian Bargain", Issues in Science and Technology (Spring 2003),<www.issues.org/19.3/wheelis.htm>, citing statement by retired Rear Admiral Stephen Baker that U.S. special forces were equipped with "knockout gases." 83. Naval Studies Board, An Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons, p. 27. 84. Ruppe, "New Research." 85. Naval Studies Board, An Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons, p. 107. 86. See Neil Davison and Nick Lewer, Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project Research Report No. 8, (Bradford, UK: Centre for Conflict Resolution, University of Bradford, March 2006), p. 52, <www.brad.ac.uk/acad/nlw/research_reports/docs/BNLWRPResearchReportNo8_Mar06.pdf>. 87. Society for Neuroscience, quoted in Malcolm Dando, "Scientific and technological change and the future of the CWC: The problem of non-lethal weapons," Disarmament Forum 4 (2002), p. 38, <www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art1824.pdf>. 88. ERDEC, "Synthetic Opioids"; The WorldWide Anaesthetist Web Site, "Opioids"; also see Y. Chen, A. Mestek, J. Liu, J.A. Hurley and L. Yu, "Molecular cloning and expression of a mu-opioid receptor from rat brain," Molecular Pharmacology 44 (July 1993), pp. 8–12; C. Mollereau, M. Parmentier, P. Mailleux, J.L. Butour, C. Moisand, P. Chalon, D. Caput, G. Vassart, and J.C. Meunier, "ORL1, a novel member of the opioid receptor family. Cloning, functional expression and localization," FEBS Letters 341 (March 14, 1994), pp. 33–38; I. Kitchen, S.J. Slowe, H.W.D. Matthes, and B. Kieffer, "Quantitative autoradiographic mapping of mu, delta and kappa-opioid receptors in knockout mice lacking the mu-opioid receptor gene," Brain Research 778 (Dec. 5, 1997), pp. 73–88; H.W. Matthes, R. Maldonado, F. Simonin, O. Valverde, S. Slowe, I. Kitchen, K. Befort, A. Dierich, M. Le Meur, P. Dolle, E. Tzavara, J. Hanoune, B.P. Roques, and B.L. Kieffer, "Loss of morphine-induced analgesia, reward effect and withdrawal symptoms in mice lacking the mu-opioid-receptor gene," Nature 383 (Oct. 31, 1996), pp. 819–823. 89. R. Romberg, E. Sarton, L. Teppema, H.W. Matthes, B.L. Kieffer, and A. Dahan, "Comparison of morphine-6-glucuronid and morphine on respiratory depressant and antinociceptive responses in wild type and mu-opioid receptor deficient mice," British Journal of Anaesthesia 91 (Dec. 2003), pp. 862–870). 90. Wheelis and Dando "Neurobiology"; Dando, "Danger"; Slavko Bokan, John G. Breen, and Zvonko Orehovec, "An Evaluation of Bioregulators as Terrorism and Warfare Agents," ASA Newsletter, 02-3, Issue 90 (June 28, 2002), p. 1, <http://www.asanltr.com/newsletter/02-3/articles/023c.htm>; Lakoski, et al., Advantages and Limitations, p. 5, stating that " the premier status of the US pharmaceutical industry in the world markets, combined with the exponential developments in the fields of pharmacology, neuroscience, anesthesia, and biotechnology fields, among others, has brought forth a diverse array of compounds that produce sedation and/or a calm state as either a primary or secondary effect." 91. Naval Studies Board, An Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons, pp. 5, 79. 92. U.S. Army, "Chemical Immobilizing Agents for Non-lethal Applications," Topic CBD 00-108, Small Business Innovation Research Solicitation CBD 00.1, <www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/sbir/solicitations/sbir001/cbd001.htm>. 93. Optimetrics, Inc., "Chemical Immobilizing Agents for Non-Lethal Applications," SBIR phase I award from the CBD 00.1 Solicitation, <www.nttc.edu/resources/funding/awards/dod/2000sbir/001cbd.asp>. 94. Copeland, "Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program"; see also U.S. Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate, Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate Newsletter, 2nd Quarter, 2001, as cited in Tobias Feakin, Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project, Research Report 3 (Bradford, UK: Dept. of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, Aug. 2001), <www.brad.ac.uk/acad/nlw/research_reports/researchreport3.php>. 95. Robert Bunker, ed., Nonlethal Weapons: Terms and References, INSS Occasional Paper 15 (Colorado Springs: U.S. Air Force Academy, USAF Institute for National Security Affairs, Dec. 1996), p. 10, <http://www.usafa.af.mil/df/inss/OCP/ocp15.pdf>. Calmatives were classified together with gastrointestinal convulsives, malodorants, biodegrading microbes, and biomaterials as "Biotechnical" in a "Non-Lethal Technology: Taxonomy" presented by the JNLWD Director in March 2000; Col. George Fenton, "The U.S. Dept. of Defense Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program, March 2000 Overview," presentation at the Non-Lethal Defense IV Conference, sponsored by the National Defense Industrial Association, March 20–22, 2000, slide 10, <www.dtic.mil/ndia/nld4/fenton.pdf>. 96. Naval Studies Board, An Assessment of Non-Lethal Weapons, p. 24. 97. OC/RCA is oleoresin capsicum/riot control agent; OC is also known as pepper spray. See Robert J. Hegarty, "Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program: Non-Lethal Mortar Cartridge (NLMC)," presentation at National Defense Industry Association 2003 Picatinny Chapter/PEO Mortars Conference, Oct. 2003, <www.sunshine-project.org/incapacitants/jnlwdpdf/usamort03.pdf>; Camilo A. Sanchez, "Non-Lethal Airburst Munition(s) for Objective Individual Combat Weapon," presentation at 2001 National Defense Industry Association Joint Services Small Arms Symposium, Aug. 15, 2001, <www.sunshine-project.org/incapacitants/jnlwdpdf/sanchez.pdf>. Although not analyzed in detail here, achieving rapid delivery of tightly controlled doses of biochemical incapacitants remains by far the greatest challenge facing those who would use existing agents or agents likely to be developed in the near future. As a 2002 technical review of the airburst non-lethal munition under development by JNLWD noted, achieving effective payload dissemination is critical for success yet remained "the highest te
Publication Year: 2006
Publication Date: 2006-07-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 38
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot