BIOWARFARE RESEARCH CONDUCTED AT U.S. UNIVERSITIES
(word processor parameters LM=8, RM=75, TM=2, BM=2)
Taken from KeelyNet BBS (214) 324-3501
Sponsored by Vangard Sciences
PO BOX 1031
Mesquite, TX 75150
There are ABSOLUTELY NO RESTRICTIONS
on duplicating, publishing or distributing the
files on KeelyNet!
December 10, 1990
BIOWAR1.ASC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BIOWARFARE RESEARCH CONDUCTED AT U.S. UNIVERSITIES
Overshadowed by Star Wars, the push toward developing ghastly
instruments of biological warfare has been one of the Reagan
administration's best-kept secrets.
The research budget for infectious diseases and toxins has increased
tenfold since fiscal 1981, and most of the 1986 budget of $42
million went to 24 U.S. Universities where the world's most deadly
organisms are being cultivated in campus labs.
The large sums of military money available for bio-technology
research is a powerful attraction for scientists whose civilian
funding resources have dried up.
Scientists who formerly researched diseases like cancer now use
their talents to develop strains of such rare pathogens as anthrax,
Rift Valley fever, Japanese encephalitis, tularemia, shigella,
botulin, and Q fever.
Many members of the academic community find the trend alarming.
However, when MIT's biology department voted to refuse Pentagon
funds for biotech research, the administration forced it to reverse
its decision by threatening to cut off other funds.
In 1987, when the University of Wisconsin hired retired Army Col.
Philip Sobocinski to help professors attract Pentagon-funded
biowarfare research, a UW science writer was fired after disclosing
the details in the student newspaper.
Since the U.S. signed the 1972 Biological and Toxic Weapons
Convention, which bans "development, production, stockpiling, and
use of microbes or their poisonous byproducts except in amounts
necessary for protective and peaceful research," the university-
based projects are called defensive efforts aimed at developing
vaccines and protective gear.
Scientists who oppose the program insist that a germ-warfare defense
is clearly impractical; the entire population would have to be
vaccinated for every known harmful biological agent.
The only feasible application of a "defensive" development is in
conjunction with offensive use: Troops could be effectively
Page 1
vaccinated for a single agent prior to launching an attack with it.
Another issue receiving even less attention is the safety or the
security of the labs involved. Release of pathogens, either by
accident or design, would prove tragic.
Twenty-three U.S. schools, including the Universities of California,
Connecticut, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Utah, are
currently engaged in Bio-Warfare Research.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: ISTHMUS, October 8, 1987, "Biowarfare and the UW,"
by Richard Jannaccio;
THE PROGRESSIVE, Nov. 16, 1987, "Poisons from the
Pentagon," by Seth Shulman;
WALL STREET JOURNAL, Sept. 17, 1986, "Military Science,"
by Bill Richards and Tim Carrington.
From: UTNE READER, September/October 1988, p. 87.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have comments or other information relating to such topics
as this paper covers, please upload to KeelyNet or send to the
Vangard Sciences address as listed on the first page.
Thank you for your consideration, interest and support.
Jerry W. Decker.........Ron Barker...........Chuck Henderson
Vangard Sciences/KeelyNet
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If we can be of service, you may contact
Jerry at (214) 324-8741 or Ron at (214) 242-9346
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
Comments
Post a Comment