Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:30:39.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Commentary On Articles by Charles F. Dasey and Thomas R. Dashiell On the Biological Defense Research Program (Bdrp)1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Robert J. Rutman
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6215
Harry J. Disch
Affiliation:
National Security Program, Scientists' Institute for Public Information, 355 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Get access

Extract

In so far as any new technology or information in biology or biomedicine is also potentially relevant to biological warfare (BW), and therefore to the Biological Defense Research Program (BDRP), BDRP is equivalent to a biore-search program, making it, ipso facto, unnecessary. The papers by Dashiell and Dasey reviewed herein certainly present this equivalence and provide very little, if any, justification of BDRP as having a unique, distinctive military role requiring budgetary dispensations. In fact, the only specific military role mentioned for BDRP, that of protecting personnel, would utilize military means developed for chemical warfare.

Type
Commentaries
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boyle, F. A.“The Legal Distortions Behind the Reagan Administration's Chemical and Biological Warfare Buildup.” Chapter 8 in The Future of International Law and American Foreign Policy. Dobbs Ferry, N.J.: Transnational Publishers, Inc. 1989, pp. 277317.Google Scholar