Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Bioterrorism research paper
Ethical safeguards in clinical research
Consequences of biological warfare
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Bioterrorism research paper
Biological warfare is infecting humans, animals and plants with a disease intentionally. This act is performed by introducing a bacterium or a virus into such an environment where population is not prepared to combat the infection caused by a pathogen. During warlike situations these biological weapons result in potent killing of humans, livestock, plants and pets. The infection causing bacteria or viruses are genetically or conventionally modified to have resistance to antibiotics. These pathogens could easily spread further through air, water, touch and food. Bacillus anthracis commonly known as anthrax is a bacterium which is when exposed to humans, releases toxin and can be fatal if not treated timely.
The first biological weapon was
…show more content…
Professional and moral responsibilities of the workers who took part in the development of vaccines and then clinical tests were to be defined within the limits of ethics. These ethical issues were are mainly concerned with informed consent of the patients involved in clinical testing. Also the risk and beneficence of the people involved in the research and development of biodefense methods. There is a ‘dual-use dilemma’ is an ethical dilemma in using technologies like genetic engineering and other research which have an ability to be used in bad ways as well as good ways. The ethical issues in bioterrorism or biodefense can be easily related to this dilemma. Biotechnology helps is inventing new vaccines, medicines, healthy food, various therapies for life threatening diseases. But in this case biotechnology has been misused for causing harm and killing huge number of people. In such a way scientific research and the technologies are being misused and create …show more content…
By using various ethical tools we can justify why bioterrorism is wrong and if right then to what extent. In order to get rid of huge destruction we need to have solutions which are concerned with these ethical issues. By killing so many innocent people we are question humanity. Anybody who is doing research, his/her knowledge should not harm anyone. Any work should be based on beneficent development and make wise use of scientific knowledge. These days at international airports, there is a strict security check on what we are carrying with us from the other country. It is to make sure that we are not carrying anything that can result in bioterrorism. There are things like plants, spices and some food items that are not affecting the native country but can affect some other country adversely in the allergies and spread throughout the nation. There should be a restriction of spreading of information and knowledge about the ‘dual-use’ technology to those groups who think that this information can help them developing and spreading bioterrorism. The review and monitoring of the procedure by an ethical committee should ensure that the benefits of the research is more than the risks and harm. There should be strict laws and regulation to keep a check on these activities and those who do not abide by these regulations must get
Guillemin, J. (2005). Biological weapons: From the invention of state-sponsored programs to contemporary bioterrorism Columbia University Press.
Anthrax is one of the most preferred biological warfare agents for many highly identified reasons. First, anthrax is extremely lethal. Anthrax can contain up to 100 million lethal doses in just one gram of anthrax spores, which is 100,000 times more lethal than any other biological warfare agent. It is also known that inhalation anthrax is almost always fatal if the symptoms are allowed to progress without any treatment. Anthrax is also the silent and invisible killer. On top of the fatality rate of anthrax, there are also very low barriers to produce the biological weapon. Anthrax spores are very easy to produce in large quantities, and the process of production is very inexpensive. Also, there is plenty of available information on how to weaponize anthrax and not a whole lot of technology is needed to be able to produce anthrax. Anthrax is also easy to weaponize because it is extremely stable as a dry powder in the form of spores. These spores can live for decades and still be very lethal to the human body. Anthrax can be put into an aerosol form disseminated into a spray can, and it can also be freeze-dried into a bomb. Presently anthrax is the most preferred biological agent is because we have no accurate detection capability.
Nowadays, technology makes easier for scientists to discover new viruses and find cures for them. One these viruses, “bird flu” known as H5N1 recreated by the Dutch scientist Ron Fouchier. Even though he had no ill intention to create such strain, it has a potential to wipe most humanity off from the face of the world as well as saving the humanity from much worse viruses. The discovery of this virus caused a big controversy in the scientific world. Some scientists think that publication of this virus indeed benefits society while some say that not publishing this might prevent society from horrible incidents.
truth, if the science is used ethically, it serves the same purpose as any ethical and useful modification we have made to the external environment in which we live.
With a consequentialist tone of approach, he describes human society having an imbalance between two ideals: the acceptance of oneself as a gift and the strive for perfection. The usage of technology for enhancement purposes pushes us away from the first and more towards the latter. Bioethics’ main principle revolves around the concept of morality, defined by beliefs regarding actions that are often split between being right or wrong in interpretation and character (Vaughn). Sandel upholds to this stance, confronting it with our own ideology that through the pronouncement of terms of biotechnology, we seem to accept more than reject what is brought up in the culture of society, this type of thinking reaffirming our current beliefs of the nature of controversial
The dropping and the atomic bomb and the continued use of human subjects during scientific testing in the 20th century continues to be a controversial subject. It is because the actions carried out saved many lives and that those hurt were informed and volunteered that these methods were moral. It is because of the debate surrounding these actions that science has continued to evolve. From these earlier practices, more rigid experimental methods are enforced. These new regulations protect the patient and continue to ensure that those sacrificing their safety to aid others are not injured without fully understanding the risks involved. The modern world will continue to benefit from the actions taken by the United States during the 20th century.
Selgelid, M. (2007). A Tale of Two Studies:Ethics, Bioterrorism, and the Censorship of Science. Project Muse, 3, 35-43. Retrieved February 13, 2011, from http://journals.ohiolink.edu/ejc/article.cgi?issn=1552146x&issue=v37i0003&article=35_atotsebatcos
Physician-assisted suicide refers to the physician acting indirectly in the death of the patient -- providing the means for death. The ethics of PAS is a continually debated topic. The range of arguments in support and opposition of PAS are vast. Justice, compassion, the moral irrelevance of the difference between killing and letting die, individual liberty are many arguments for PAS. The distinction between killing and letting die, sanctity of life, "do no harm" principle of medicine, and the potential for abuse are some of the arguments in favor of making PAS illegal. However, self-determination, and ultimately respect for autonomy are relied on heavily as principle arguments in the PAS issue.
Technology in the light of military weaponry has been one of the growingly controversial issues that the world faces today. Among the top weapon types that have advanced greatly over the past recent years are nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. Though the United States government and military has been enthusiastically involved in the evolution of these weapons, their enthusiasm dwindles when responsibility must be taken for the consequences that result. Consequences that are left unresolved or postponed only bring about more doubts and questions that all branch off of one basic issue: Is it ethical to continue the advancement of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare when the results cannot be controlled?
Throughout history, human beings have pushed the limits of popular belief and evolved immensely by embracing technology. The quest for efficiency and the betterment of society, quality of life, medical procedures and diagnosis, and methods of healing has been an endless road of progression. Many new methods and technological advances, particularly in the medical field, have been debated with the question of ethics. Ethics is defined as the moral correctness of specified conduct. Morality is simply what one would consider right or wrong in human nature. The definition of morality leaves much to be considered when considering the ethics of genetic testing, enhancements and engineering.
Last July, a unquestioned illness came from Yamal Peninsula on a cold region of the northwestern Siberia, a part of Russia. Few weeks later, the sickness wiped out more than 2,000 reindeer in just a month. Hundreds or thousands of people are infected and being hospitalized After a couple of days of treating a 12 year old boy who had a fever and was vomiting had died.The illness is called Anthrax a deadly virus that can cause sores on skin, stomach problems, and pneumonia, an inflammation of lungs.
The deployment of animals for medical research has brought heated debates from both the proponents and opponents each holding to their views in a tight manner. Those who are in support of animal research argue that it has been constituting a vital element in the advancement of medical sciences throughout the world providing insights to various diseases, which have helped in the discovery and development of various medicines that have brought an improvement in the qualify of living of people. Such discoveries have gone so deep that but for them many would have died a premature death because no cure would have been found for the diseases that they were otherwise suffering. On the other hand, animal lovers and animal right extremists hold to the view that animal experimentation is not only necessary but also Cruel. Human kind is subjecting them to such cruelties because they are helpless and even assuming such experiments do bring in benefits, the inhuman treatment meted out to them is simply not worth such benefits. They would like measures, including enactment of legislations to put an end to using animals by the name of research. This paper takes the view there are merits in either of the arguments and takes the stand a balanced approach needs to be taken on the issue so that both the medical science does not suffer, and the animal lovers are pacified, even if not totally satisfied. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The next section discusses both the sides by taking account the view of scholars and practitioners and the subsequent section concludes the paper by drawing vital points from the previous section to justify the stand taken in this paper....
...follows the general code of ethics, but it only has one specific code of ethics for gene synthesis. This worries many people because they cannot see synthetic biologists’ ethical procedures and how these researchers would apply these rules in different situations. In time, there will be an agreed upon code of ethics for synthetic biology and this will help relieve people because they will believe that valuable, but possibly dangerous, information is less likely fall into the wrong hands and that appropriate experimenting occurs. The goal of synthetic biology is to improve medicine and protect the environment. Synthetic biologists want to cure cancer, provide new energy sources, and more sustainable foods. People’s concerns are legitimate and need to be analyzed, but until these ethical concerns and possible risks are addressed synthetic biology cannot move forward.
Thesis: Biological Warfare is morally and inhumanely wrong, It is the wrongful killing of men, women, and children. It should be stopped no matter what the circumstances are.
The main goal of the Biological Weapons Convention is to reduce the global threat of these types of weapons and prevent them from causing great harm. In order to reach this goal, they gather information from all the parties on the development and stockpiles of these weapons as well as the research they are doing to combat and develop antibiotics for these weapons of mass destruction. These actions fall along the lines of the prohibition signed in Geneva on June 17th 1927. The prohibition against these weapons was meant to sway the ravages of their horrors during a time of war or civil unrest.