tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/biological-threats-3167/articlesBiological threats – The Conversation2017-11-19T09:17:52Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/873732017-11-19T09:17:52Z2017-11-19T09:17:52ZCitizen science: how ordinary people can guard Cape Town’s biodiversity<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/194837/original/file-20171115-19823-9t3g8p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Citizen scientists collecting soil and fine-roots from under unhealthy plants. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Cape Citizen Science</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Right now, you might be harbouring a killer: one so small it’s hidden in the sole of your hiking shoes. These tiny murderers won’t harm you in the short term, but they can be deadly for the plants that are crucial to food security and biodiversity conservation. </p>
<p><a href="http://rdcu.be/yjo0">New research</a> we conducted with our colleagues shows that some of these plant-killing microbes, known as <em>Phytophthora</em>, can be detected in urban areas before they get the chance to escape and spread into the natural environment. <em>Phytophthora</em> is a Greek word that best translates to “plant destroyer”. Species in this group are responsible for some of the worst plant disease epidemics in history. The <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Famine-Irish-history">Irish Potato Famine</a> in the mid 1800s was caused by <em>Phytophthora infestans</em>, a species that still plagues tomato and potato fields around the world. </p>
<p>Another species, <em>Phytophthora cinnamomi</em>, is known as the “biological bulldozer” in Australia. It has affected thousands of plant species and is considered a top environmental threat. It also occurs in the Cape Floral Kingdom of southwestern South Africa, a hugely important biodiversity hot spot that encompasses the city of Cape Town. Thanks to citizen scientists engaged as <a href="https://theconversation.com/pathogen-hunters-citizen-scientists-track-plant-diseases-to-save-species-73710">pathogen hunters</a>, we have also learned that other “plant destroyers” are present in the Cape Floral Kingdom.</p>
<p>Many professional staff members from botanical gardens, nature reserves and national parks have already contributed to the project’s findings in the natural areas surrounding Cape Town. Now we’re asking citizens to help look for plant destroyers in the city’s urban areas.</p>
<p>This study is important because our best chance of preventing a plant disease epidemic is to detect the species before it spreads into natural or agricultural environments. Humans – the very “carriers” who can spread dangerous microbes unthinkingly from their equipment and shoes – can instead become the first line of defence against a possible microscopic invasion. </p>
<h2>Dangerous species on the move</h2>
<p>Cape Citizen Science is a project supported by the DST-NRF <a href="https://fabinet.up.ac.za/index.php/research-groups/dst-nrf-centre-of-excellence-in-tree-health-biotechnology">Centre of Excellence in Tree Health Biotechnology</a>, the <a href="https://www.fabinet.up.ac.za/">Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute</a> at the University of Pretoria, and Stellenbosch University. </p>
<p>It engages non-scientists in ecological and microbiological research. Currently the project facilitates research about the diversity and distribution of <em>Phytophthora</em> species in the Cape Floral Kingdom. The results provide baseline knowledge about the plant destroyers already present in natural areas. But we fear that other species, which have not yet “escaped”, may be hiding in urban areas. </p>
<p>We suspect most of these species are limited to the soil. That means they can’t “escape” unless the soil or infected plant tissues from the same area are moved. The worst case scenario would be the discovery of a wind-dispersed species such as <em>Phytophthora ramorum</em> – the organism that causes <a href="http://suddenoakdeath.org/">Sudden Oak Death</a> in the US. Finding these kinds of species before they can be blown away is important.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PKSI1sxHiEc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Citizen scientists conducting research.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our research suggests that surveys in urban environments could lead to the detection of <em>Phytophthora</em> species before they escape into the natural environment. Preventing their escape or spread is critical for preventing the damage these “destroyers” can do in natural or agricultural settings.</p>
<h2>Biodiversity protectors</h2>
<p>This is why we’ve launched a new phase of Cape Citizen Science called “The Cape Town Hypothesis Test”. A hypothesis is an idea that can be tested scientifically. In this case, we hypothesise that there are different <em>Phytophthora</em> species in Cape Town’s urban areas than there are in the area on and around Table Mountain National Park, a <a href="https://www.sanparks.org/parks/table_mountain/conservation/heritage.php">world heritage site</a> that’s a major part of the Cape Floral Kingdom.</p>
<p>Citizens participating in the project could be the first to discover a new introduction of a <em>Phytophthora</em> species in South Africa. Detecting such a species before it spreads to the natural environment is critical for protecting South Africa’s incredible biodiversity and preventing destruction from other potential “biological bulldozers”. If a different species is detected in the urban areas then local communities, researchers, stakeholders and officials can prevent the spread into natural areas. </p>
<p>From November 2017 until the end of February 2018 we’re seeking ordinary people’s help to test our hypothesis. This involves the collection of soil and fine roots from under sick plants in Cape Town’s urban areas. Instructions and examples of sick plants have been made <a href="http://citsci.co.za/capetown">available online</a>. Samples will then be tested in a laboratory at Stellenbosch University for the presence of a <em>Phytophthora</em> species.</p>
<p>We have also designated 15 important areas to collect samples. A map of these areas is available on the <a href="http://citsci.co.za/capetown">website</a>. Once a sample is submitted from one of those areas, the map areas will change colours and a GPS point will be added with the citizen’s name (if they wish). By sampling these areas, the study will ensure broad coverage of Cape Town’s urban areas.</p>
<p>Testing hypotheses is an important part of scientific research. The results of this study can be used to inform decisions to protect the natural areas surrounding the mother city. For example, finding a different species in the urban areas may be enough to justify boot cleaning stations at the base of the <a href="http://www.tablemountain.net/">Table Mountain Aerial Cableway</a> – a way to keep those tiny murderers from “hitch hiking” into natural and agricultural areas on our boots.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87373/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joey Hulbert receives funding from the University of Pretoria and Cape Citizen Science benefits from support provided by the DST-NRF Centre of Excellence in Tree Health Biotechnology and the Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Francois Roets works for the Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Stellenbosch University. He receives funding from the South African Department of Science and Technology/National Research Foundation Center of Excellence in Tree Health Biotechnology. </span></em></p>Humans - the very “carriers” who can spread dangerous microbes unthinkingly from their equipment and shoes - can instead become the first line of defence against a possible microscopic invasion.Joey Hulbert, PhD Student, University of PretoriaFrancois Roets, Senior lecturer, Stellenbosch UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/683372016-11-15T19:08:06Z2016-11-15T19:08:06ZAs the world pushes for a ban on nuclear weapons, Australia votes to stay on the wrong side of history<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144977/original/image-20161108-4715-1i1447e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More than 70 years after the Hiroshima bombing, a majority of countries are pushing for a legally-binding treaty against nuclear weapons.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Tim Wright/ICAN/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In early December, the nations of the world are poised to take an historic step forward on nuclear weapons. Yet most Australians still haven’t heard about what’s happening, even though Australia is an important part of this story – which is set to get even bigger in the months ahead.</p>
<p>On October 27 2016, I watched as countries from around the world met in New York and <a href="http://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com16/resolutions/L41.pdf">resolved</a> through the United Nations’ <a href="http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/">General Assembly First Committee</a> to negotiate a new legally binding treaty to “prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination”. It was carried by a <a href="http://www.icanw.org/campaign-news/results/">majority of 123 to 38</a>, with 16 abstentions. Australia was among the minority to <a href="http://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com16/eov/L41_Poland-etal.pdf">vote “no”</a>.</p>
<p>Given that overwhelming majority, it is almost certain that resolution will be formally ratified in early December at a full UN general assembly meeting. </p>
<p>After it’s ratified, international negotiating meetings will take place <a href="http://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com16/resolutions/L41.pdf">in March and June-July 2017</a>. Those meetings will be open to all states, and will reflect a majority view: crucially, no government or group of governments (including <a href="http://www.un.org/en/sc/">UN Security Council members</a>) will have a veto. International and civil society organisations will also have a seat at the table.</p>
<p>This is the best opportunity to kickstart nuclear disarmament since the end of the Cold War a quarter of a century ago. And it’s crucial that we act now, amid a <a href="http://lab.arstubiedriba.lv/WMJ/vol62/3-october-2016/#page=8">growing threat of nuclear war</a> (as we discuss in the latest edition of the <a href="http://lab.arstubiedriba.lv/WMJ/vol62/3-october-2016/#page=1">World Medical Association’s journal</a>). </p>
<p>But the resolution was bitterly <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/28/un-votes-to-start-negotiating-treaty-to-ban-nuclear-weapons">opposed</a> by most nuclear-armed states, including the United States and Russia. Those claiming “protection” from US nuclear weapons – members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization <a href="http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/">(NATO)</a>, and Japan, South Korea and Australia – also opposed the ban. This is because the treaty to be negotiated will fill the legal gap that has left nuclear weapons as the only weapon of mass destruction not yet explicitly banned by international treaty.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144982/original/image-20161108-4698-1vneo4n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144982/original/image-20161108-4698-1vneo4n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144982/original/image-20161108-4698-1vneo4n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144982/original/image-20161108-4698-1vneo4n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144982/original/image-20161108-4698-1vneo4n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=353&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144982/original/image-20161108-4698-1vneo4n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144982/original/image-20161108-4698-1vneo4n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144982/original/image-20161108-4698-1vneo4n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=444&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">About 90% of the world’s nuclear warheads are owned by Russia and the United States.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/">Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, 'Status of World Nuclear Forces', Federation of American Scientists. A regularly updated version of this is available here: http://bit.ly/2fz9ONt</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Like the treaties that ban <a href="https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/bio/">biological</a> and <a href="https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/chemical/">chemical</a> weapons, <a href="https://www.un.org/disarmament/geneva/aplc/">landmines</a> and <a href="http://www.unog.ch/80256EE600585943/(httpPages)/F27A2B84309E0C5AC12574F70036F176?OpenDocument">cluster munitions</a>, a treaty banning nuclear weapons would make it clear that these weapons are unacceptable, and that their possession, threat and use cannot be justified under any circumstances. </p>
<p>It would codify in international law what UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said: “There are no right hands for the wrong weapons.”</p>
<h2>Why treaties are worthwhile – even when some refuse to join</h2>
<p>Of course, prohibiting unacceptable weapons is not the same as eliminating them entirely. So why bother? </p>
<p>Experience shows us that weapons treaties <em>can</em> make a difference – even when some countries refuse to sign, as we would expect (at least initially) with a treaty banning nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>For example, more than 80% of the world’s nations have signed on to the <a href="http://www.icbl.org/en-gb/the-treaty/treaty-in-detail/treaty-text.aspx">landmines ban treaty</a>. Even though the US is not among the signatories, it has still proudly declared itself to essentially be in compliance with the landmines treaty (<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/statement-nsc-spokesperson-caitlin-hayden-anti-personnel-landmine-policy">except in the Korean Peninsula</a>) and plans to cease its production of cluster munitions. </p>
<p>Back in 1999, when the landmines ban first came into force, there were about 25 landmine casualties being reported every day around the world. According to the most <a href="http://www.the-monitor.org/media/2152583/Landmine-Monitor-2015_finalpdf.pdf">recent Landmine Monitor report</a>, those devastating landmines injuries and deaths have been reduced by 60%, to about 10 a day in 2014.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144980/original/image-20161108-4694-1tezoss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144980/original/image-20161108-4694-1tezoss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/144980/original/image-20161108-4694-1tezoss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144980/original/image-20161108-4694-1tezoss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144980/original/image-20161108-4694-1tezoss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144980/original/image-20161108-4694-1tezoss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144980/original/image-20161108-4694-1tezoss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/144980/original/image-20161108-4694-1tezoss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Since the landmine treaty came into force, fewer people are being killed or maimed by landmines.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iloasiapacific/8394370033/in/photolist-2iK7FR-hm8TUc-63Gsyf-2FqkrQ-c728iQ-2uWzv-jogn8-krjSZ-nH9RcQ-2iPvyG-2uWzn-63CcNB-2iPrbh-63GrYW-63CcHz-63GstL-2hNmDj-2uWoW-2uWiE-c72ads-2uWwD-hiTFjK-cGUtTj-9Nkxs-2uWwu-2uWwf-dMMkKP-2uWnA-6c5J7G-2uWni-2uWA2-hjU7Au-4HNoMV-as64SU-hjcMHE-2uWy8-reoy3-nx1zfP-6c1zta-2Tvx7j-2uWyU-hiTBVk-c72dwW-56gFNY-2uWwH-2uWz8-hiWT9m-4TaTxY-2uWnp-2TvweN">ILO in Asia and the Pacific/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Biological weapons haven’t been used by any government since the second world war. All countries except for North Korea have stopped nuclear test explosions, even though the <a href="http://www.state.gov/t/avc/c42328.htm">Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty</a> has not yet entered into force because key nuclear-capable countries have not yet signed up. </p>
<p>And when use of chemical weapons in Syria was confirmed by a UN investigation, Russia and the US forced the Syrian regime to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html">join the Chemical Weapons Convention</a>. Most – though tragically not yet all – of Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons has been destroyed. </p>
<h2>Australia’s role in fighting a nuclear weapon ban</h2>
<p>In voting “no”, Australia stuck out like a sore thumb among Asia-Pacific nations in at October’s UN committee meeting. All of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (<a href="http://asean.org/">ASEAN</a>) <a href="http://asean.org/asean/asean-member-states/">members</a> – including Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand – as well as New Zealand and ten out of 12 Pacific island countries <a href="http://www.icanw.org/campaign-news/results/">voted yes</a>.</p>
<p>Australia is signatory to all the key international treaties banning or controlling weapons. On some, like the <a href="https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/chemical/">Chemical Weapons Convention</a>, Australia was a leader. Australia’s active opposition and efforts to undermine moves towards a treaty banning nuclear weapons stand in stark contrast. </p>
<p>Australia’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/28/un-votes-to-start-negotiating-treaty-to-ban-nuclear-weapons">stated arguments</a> for opposing a ban treaty have varied, including that there are no “shortcuts” to disarmament; that only measures with the support of the nuclear-armed states are worthwhile; that a ban would damage the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, causing instability and deepening divisions between states with and without nuclear weapons; that it wouldn’t address North Korea’s threatening behaviour; and that it does not take account of today’s security challenges.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most extraordinary justification of Australia’s position came from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s first assistant secretary, Richard Sadleir, <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/estimate/aa4f0e69-697b-4d56-ad2a-ef0c34f8251d/toc_pdf/Foreign%20Affairs,%20Defence%20and%20Trade%20Legislation%20Committee_2016_10_20_4504.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/estimate/aa4f0e69-697b-4d56-ad2a-ef0c34f8251d/0000%22">who said</a> at a Senate estimates hearing on October 20, 2016:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>it is not an auspicious time to be pushing for a treaty of this sort. Indeed, in order to be able to effectively carry forward disarmament, you need to have a world in which there is not a threat of nuclear weapons and people feel safe and secure.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Can anyone seriously imagine Australian officials arguing that we need to keep stockpiles of sarin nerve gas, plague bacteria, smallpox virus, or botulism toxin for deterrence, just in case, because we live in an uncertain world? </p>
<p>Yet that is what Australia continues to argue about nuclear weapons. Sadleir is saying that disarmament is only possible after it has happened, when we live in an impossibly perfect world. It’s a nonsensical argument that puts off nuclear disarmament indefinitely. </p>
<p>As revealed in <a href="http://www.icanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FOI-DFAT-Sept2015.pdf">Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade internal documents</a>, released through a Freedom of Information request, the real reason that Australia opposes a ban treaty is that it would jeopardise our <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/16/australia-isolated-in-its-hesitation-to-sign-treaty-banning-nuclear-weapons">reliance on US nuclear weapons</a>.</p>
<h2>How Australia can help with disarmament</h2>
<p>It’s 71 years since the Hiroshima bombing, and 46 years since the <a href="https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/">nuclear non-proliferation treaty</a> came into force, committing all governments to bring about nuclear disarmament. But that treaty is too weak: no disarmament negotiations are underway or planned. </p>
<p>Instead, every nuclear armed state is <a href="https://www.icrc.org/en/international-review/article/nuclear-arsenals-current-developments-trends-and-capabilities?language=en">investing massively</a> in keeping and modernising their nuclear arsenals for the indefinite future. The US alone has said it plans to spend about <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/publication/49870">US$348 billion over the next decade</a> on its nuclear arsenal.</p>
<p>Nations like Australia cannot eliminate weapons they don’t own. But they can prohibit them, by international treaty and in domestic law. And they can push other nations to do more to reduce threats to humanity – just as Australia has done with every other weapon of mass destruction.</p>
<p>An overwhelming majority of Australians have said in the past that they support a treaty banning nuclear weapons: 84% according to a <a href="http://www.icanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NielsenPoll.pdf">2014 Nielsen poll</a> commissioned by the <a href="http://www.icanw.org/">International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons</a>, with only 3% opposed. </p>
<p>This is an issue that should be above party politics. In 2015, the Labor Party adopted a new national policy platform committing to support the negotiation of a global treaty banning nuclear weapons. At a public meeting in Perth last month, Bill Shorten said that a Labor government would support the UN resolution for a ban treaty.</p>
<p>In October 2016, our government let us down by voting to be counted on the wrong side of history. Thankfully, we can still expect to see the United Nations ratify the move towards a new treaty banning nuclear weapons in December, with negotiations set to begin in March 2017 in New York. It’s still not too late for Australia to change its vote, and participate constructively in the negotiations next year.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68337/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tilman Ruff is a co-president of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. He is also founding chair and current International Steering Group and Australian Committee member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.
</span></em></p>In early December, the nations of the world are poised to take an historic step on nuclear weapons. Yet Australia sticks out like a sore thumb among Asia-Pacific nations in arguing against change.Tilman Ruff, Associate Professor, International Education and Learning Unit, Nossal Institute for Global Health, School of Population and Global Health, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/652672016-09-22T17:11:53Z2016-09-22T17:11:53ZAssessing the risk from Africa as Libya loses its chemical weapons<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138483/original/image-20160920-12483-hu9bm7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The threat of chemical weapon attacks is on the rise globally.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Reuters/Ueslei Marcelino</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Libya’s remaining chemical weapons left over from the Gaddafi regime are now being safely <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37308753">disposed</a> of in a German facility. This eliminates the risk of them falling into the wrong hands. But can these same hands acquire weapons of mass destruction from the rest of Africa?</p>
<p>Weapons of mass destruction are commonly broken into four categories: chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon">Chemical agents</a> include choking agents (chlorine), blister agents (mustard), blood agents (hydrogen cyanide and nerve agents as well as sarin or VX). Biological weapons involve a microorganism such as bacteria (anthrax is an example), fungi or a virus (such as smallpox) and <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/intro/bio_tox.htm">toxins</a>. <a href="http://www.nti.org/learn/radiological/">Radiological attack</a> material is usually combined with radioactive material in conventional explosives while a full nuclear detention involves fission. </p>
<p>There is limited open source information on African countries’ current biological and chemical weapons programmes. And all African countries, with just two exceptions- Egypt and South Sudan - have signed the <a href="https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/">Chemical Weapons Convention</a> which commits countries to destroy all stockpiles. No African state <a href="http://nwp.ilpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Africa-nuclear-weapons.pdf">at the moment</a> possesses nuclear weapons.</p>
<p>State-owned stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction on the continent are therefore not the biggest threat. Rather there is growing <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/dual-use-traders-the-real-wmd-threat-in-southeast-asia/">concern</a> about dual-use goods. These are materials that are primarily produced for peaceful purposes but can also be used for deadly purposes. </p>
<p>Examples include chemical products used by industry such as herbicides or pesticides that can be turned into weapons or biological agents created using your typical research lab equipment. For example, Australian <a href="https://www.amacad.org/content/publications/pubContent.aspx?d=22233">researchers</a> exploring ways to control the mouse population unexpectedly produced a lethal mousepox virus.</p>
<p>Governments often have limited knowledge of chemical production since it is the preserve of the private sector. Often these facilities are not as well secured as government facilities.</p>
<p>Kenya, with the help of the US, has just taken steps to prevent terrorists laying their hands on biomedical toxins that could be used to make <a href="http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Research-labs-set-for-Sh1-7bn-upgrade-to-avert-terror-attack/539546-3381412-135ih62/">biological weapons</a>. The country has been the target of deadly attacks by al-Shabaab terrorists in <a href="https://theconversation.com/making-sense-of-horrific-violence-in-kenya-39746">recent times</a>. </p>
<h2>What is known</h2>
<p>Egypt <a href="http://fas.org/nuke/guide/egypt/nuke/">decided</a> to concentrate on increasing conventional forces, and chemical and biological weapons, rather than nuclear weapons. It is also one of the few states to <a href="http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/egypt/">have used</a> chemical weapons in wartime in the 1960s. In the 1980s Egypt <a href="http://www.idsa.in/cbwmagazine/CBWinEgyptandLibya_DanyShoham">intensified</a> its biological activity, working closely with Iraq. Information on its current programmes is limited. </p>
<p>The country has been very vocal on the subject of the Chemical Weapons <a href="https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/">Convention</a>. It justifies the fact that it has not signed the convention <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-ratifying-the-chemical-weapons-convention-is-in-israels-best-interest-63889">on the grounds that</a> Israel has also not ratified it. </p>
<p>South Sudan is the only other remaining African country that’s not party to the convention. The newly established country was believed to be on the receiving end of chemical weapons attacks in early 2016. The <a href="http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article57879">accusation</a> was that the Sudanese Army used such weapons during fighting in the Lanyi and Mundri areas. The UN Mission in South Sudan <a href="https://radiotamazuj.org/en/article/unmiss-says-no-evidence-chemical-weapons-use-mundri">investigated</a> and declared no signs of chemical weapons and that smoke inhaled by children may have come from either conventional weapons or teargas. </p>
<p>Sudan was believed at one point to be <a href="http://bio-defencewarfareanalyst.blogspot.com/2014/05/up-comingsudans-pursuit-of-biological.html">pursuing</a> biological weapons and to <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2001/10/were_the_sudanese_making_chemical_weapons.html">possess</a> VX nerve gas. But open source evidence is inconclusive. </p>
<h2>The case of Libya</h2>
<p>Unlike its chemical weapons programme, Libya’s biological weapons never really came to life.</p>
<p>It <a href="http://www.idsa.in/cbwmagazine/CBWinEgyptandLibya_DanyShoham#footnoteref23_o6dongg">allegedly</a> sought assistance for the programme from countries like Cuba and Pakistan, and tried to recruit apartheid era South African scientists. American and British specialists invited to Libya in 2003 <a href="http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/78338.pdf">found</a> no concrete evidence of an ongoing biological effort. </p>
<p>Libya was more successful in its nuclear programme, which Gaddafi gave up in 2003. The last of Libya’s highly enriched uranium left the country on a Russian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-libya-enriched-uranium">chartered plane</a> on December 21 2009. </p>
<p>The country retains a stockpile of natural uranium ore concentrate, also known as yellow cake, which is stored in a former military facility near Sebha in the south of the country. According to the <a href="http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2015/257522.htm">US State Department</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>(the risk of trafficking and proliferation of this material is low, due to) the bulk and weight of the storage containers and the need for extensive additional processing before the material would be suitable for weapons purposes. </p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Nuclear on the continent</h2>
<p>Today, highly enriched uranium is an extremely rare commodity in Africa. Since Libya’s clean out in 2009, only Ghana, Nigeria, and South Africa <a href="http://www.fmwg.org/fmwg_wg_2015/HEU_Free_Zone_Report_FINAL.pdf">still have</a> stocks. Ghana and Nigeria each possess less than 1 kilogram.</p>
<p>During the apartheid era in South Africa the government’s <a href="https://www.enca.com/south-africa/inside-dr-deaths-laboratory">Project Coast</a> focused on the development of chemical weapons and various drugs like mandrax. South Africa developed <a href="https://www.issafrica.org/about-us/press-releases/understanding-south-africas-past-nuclear-weapons-programme">six and a half nuclear bombs</a> that were eventually dismantled. South Africa’s Pelindaba research centre still houses large quantities of weapons grade material. </p>
<p>Other nuclear facilities in Africa do exist. Of the world’s <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/radioisotopes-research/research-reactors.aspx">243 operational</a> research reactors, only 10 are in Africa. This includes research reactors typically found at universities. Their lower enriched nuclear material can be used to make a dirty radiological bomb.</p>
<h2>Non-state actors and less secure spaces</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.fmwg.org/2015-_Nuclear_and_WMD_proliferation__A_View_from_Algeria__Arslan_Chikhaoui-8_August_2015_.pdf">Intelligence reports</a> have indicated that groups such as Al Qaeda in the Maghreb have made multiple attempts to manufacture materials for weapons of mass destruction.</p>
<p>Analysts also envision militants known as <a href="http://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/?toURL=http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2014/10/05/ebola-as-isis-bio-weapon/&refURL=&referrer=#1775c9f01c7b">suicide infectors</a> visiting an area with an infectious disease outbreak like Ebola to purposely infect themselves and then using air travel to carry out the attack. Reports from 2009 <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/algeria/4287469/Black-Death-kills-al-Qaeda-operatives-in-Algeria.html">show</a> 40 al-Qaeda linked militants being killed by the plague at a training camp in Algeria. There were claims that they were developing the disease as a weapon. </p>
<p>Islamic State has already <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/315025-islamic-state-chemical-weapons/">produced</a> and used toxic chemicals such as mustard and chlorine gas. In Africa, an Islamic State cell in Morocco was <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/isis-cell-had-been-preparing-chemical-attack-in-morocco-a6886121.html">planning</a> an attack involving six jars of sulphur-containing chemical fertiliser which when heated can release a fatally toxic gas and possibly the tetanus toxin. According to Iraqi and US intelligence officials, Islamic State is aggressively <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/officials-islamic-state-seeking-chemical-weapons/">pursuing</a> further development of chemical weapons and has set up a branch dedicated to research and experiments using scientists from throughout the Middle East. </p>
<p>The disposal of Libya’s chemical weapons has lowered the risk of weapons of mass destruction in Africa. But we have seen how far non-state actors are willing to go to either produce or steal such weapons. </p>
<p>The threat they pose cannot be ignored. African countries, with help from bilateral partners and the international community, has <a href="http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/1540/ISSAfricanpespectivesof1540.pdf">broadened</a> its nonproliferation focus. It will need to keep doing so if the goal is to effectively counter this threat.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65267/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Firsing does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Governments often have limited knowledge of chemical production as it is the preserve of the private sector. Often these facilities are not as well secured as government facilities.Scott Firsing, Adjunct professor, University of North Carolina WilmingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/470342015-10-11T19:27:51Z2015-10-11T19:27:51ZMany fear the worst for humanity, so how do we avoid surrendering to an apocalyptic fate?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/94341/original/image-20150910-4697-1lns391.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People in the West seem to have a bleak vision of the prospects for our way of life and even for the survival of humanity.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-143158582/stock-photo-background-desert-town-after-the-nuclear-apocalypse.html?src=RbdGmwRKO-bU6VoUGBZpdQ-1-61">YorkBerlin/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A new, four-nation study has found people rate the risks of global threats to humanity surprisingly high. These perceptions are likely to be important, socially and politically, in shaping how humanity responds to the threats.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328715000828">study</a>, of more than 2000 people in the US, UK, Canada and Australia, found: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>54% of people surveyed rated the risk of our way of life ending within the next 100 years at 50% or greater;</p></li>
<li><p>almost one in four (24%) rated the risk of humans being wiped out within a century at 50% or greater;</p></li>
<li><p>almost three in four (73%) believe there is a 30% or greater risk of our way of life ending (30% said that the risk is 70% or more); and</p></li>
<li><p>almost four in ten (39%) believe there is a 30% or greater danger of humanity being wiped out (10% said the risk is 70% or more). </p></li>
</ul>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=460&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98150/original/image-20151012-17839-1jusqtr.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Percentage support for belief that our existing way of life or humanity has a 50% or more chance of ending in a century.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://infogr.am/futures_study-974">Authors/University of Wollongong</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The study also asked people about different responses to the threats. These responses were categorised as nihilism (the loss of belief in a social or moral order; decadence rules), fundamentalism (the retreat to certain belief; dogma rules), or activism (the transformation of belief; hope rules). It found:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>a large majority (78%) agreed “we need to transform our worldview and way of life if we are to create a better future for the world” (activism);</p></li>
<li><p>about one in two (48%) agreed that “the world’s future looks grim so we have to focus on looking after ourselves and those we love” (nihilism); and</p></li>
<li><p>more than one in three (36%) said “we are facing a final conflict between good and evil in the world” (fundamentalism).</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Findings were similar across countries, age, sex and other demographic groups, although some interesting differences emerged. For example, more Americans (30%) believed the risk of humans being wiped out was high and that humanity faces a final conflict between good and evil (47%). This presumably reflects the strength in the US of Christian fundamentalism and its belief in the “end time”, a coming Apocalypse.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/98151/original/image-20151012-17843-qaxore.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=582&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Percentage support for belief that our existing way of life or humanity has a 50% or more chance of ending in a century.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://infogr.am/futures_study-974">Authors/University of Wollongong</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A world of threats coming to a head</h2>
<p>There is mounting scientific evidence and concern that humanity faces a defining moment in history – a time when it must address growing adversities or suffer grave consequences. Reputable journals are canvassing the possibilities; the new study will be published in a special issue of Futures on <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328715001135">“Confronting catastrophic threats to humanity”</a>.</p>
<p>Most focus today is on climate change and its many, potentially catastrophic, impacts. Other threats include depletion and degradation of natural resources and ecosystems; continuing world population growth; disease pandemics; global economic collapse; nuclear and biological war and terrorism; and runaway technological change.</p>
<p>Many of these threats are not new. Scientists and other experts have warned of the dangers for decades. Nevertheless, the evidence is growing stronger, especially about climate change, and never before have actual events, including natural disasters and calamities, and their sustained and graphic media coverage so powerfully reinforced the possible impacts. </p>
<p>Not surprisingly, then, surveys reveal widespread public pessimism about the future of the world, at least in Western countries. This includes a common perception of declining quality of life, or that future generations will be worse off. </p>
<p>However, there appears to have been little research into people’s perceptions of how dire humanity’s predicament is, including the risk of collapse of civilisation or human extinction. These perceptions have a significant bearing on how societies, and humanity as a whole, deal with potentially catastrophic futures.</p>
<h2>How does loss of faith in the future affect us?</h2>
<p>People’s responses in our study do not necessarily represent considered assessments of the specific risks. Rather, they are likely to be an expression of a more general uncertainty and fear, a loss of faith in a future constructed around notions of material progress, economic growth and scientific and technological fixes to the challenges we face. </p>
<p>This loss of faith is important, yet hardly registers in current debate and discussion. We have yet to understand its full implications.</p>
<p>At best, the high perception of risk and the strong endorsement of an activist response could drive a much greater effort to confront global threats. At worst, with a loss of hope, fear of a catastrophic future erodes people’s faith in society, affecting their roles and responsibilities, and their relationship to social institutions, especially government. </p>
<p>It can deny us a social ideal to believe in – something to convince us to subordinate our own individual interests to a higher social purpose.</p>
<p>There is a deeply mythic dimension to this situation. Humans have always been susceptible to apocalyptic visions, especially in times of rapid change; we need utopian ideals to inspire us. </p>
<p>Our visions of the future are woven into the stories we create to make sense and meaning of our lives, to link us to a broader social or collective narrative. Historians and futurists have emphasised the importance of confidence and optimism to the health of civilisations and, conversely, the dangers of cynicism and disillusion.</p>
<p>Despite increasing political action on specific issues like climate change, globally the scale of our response falls far short of matching the magnitude of the threats. Closing this gap requires a deeper understanding of how people perceive the risks and how they might respond.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article was co-authored by Richard Eckersley, founding director of <a href="http://www.australia21.org.au/">Australia21</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47034/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melanie Randle receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>People rate the risks of global threats to humanity surprisingly high. We need to understand the impacts of a loss of faith in notions of material progress and scientific and technological fixes.Melanie Randle, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/418062015-05-27T09:32:04Z2015-05-27T09:32:04ZHow DNA is helping us fight back against pest invasions<p>They are the original globe trekkers. From spiders bunking along with humanity’s spread into <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecog.01244/full">south-eastern Asia</a>, to <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/chordata/urochordata.html">sea squirts</a> hopping on military craft returning after the <a href="http://www.aquaticinvasions.net/2007/AI_2007_2_4_Davis_etal.pdf">Korean War</a>, invasive species have enveloped the globe.</p>
<p>These species outcompete native ones for resources and also cause immense environmental damage, for example by eating native species and their young, or by introducing parasites and diseases.</p>
<p>Their largest impact, however, is economic. The estimated annual cost of invasive species to the UK and Ireland is <a href="http://invasivespeciesireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Economic_Impact_Assessment_FINAL_280313.pdf">£2 billion</a>. This includes the cost of damage from all invasive animal and plant species to sectors such as tourism, business, human health and agriculture.</p>
<p>The cost of controlling invasive species is also huge. Eradication, if possible, may cost millions of pounds. This cost increases as the population becomes bigger, and a late-caught invasion can cost <a href="http://www.nonnativespecies.org/downloadDocument.cfm?id=487">thousands of times</a> more to control than one that was caught early on. Aside from some small technical differences, this model can be applied across all invasive species.</p>
<p>Environmentally, they pose a significant threat to global <a href="http://www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html">biodiversity</a> by competing with other species and <a href="http://bit.ly/1FBqsV5">altering the environment</a>, for example by blocking waterways or accelerating erosion. </p>
<p>Conventional monitoring techniques, such as checking and photographing the bottom of recreational boats for potential invaders, are not robust enough to handle this threat. Many invasive species also look similar to natives and can also confuse detection. Fortunately, a potent tool is available that lends well to management of invasive species: analysis of their DNA.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83080/original/image-20150527-4857-1cvx6kv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/83080/original/image-20150527-4857-1cvx6kv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83080/original/image-20150527-4857-1cvx6kv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83080/original/image-20150527-4857-1cvx6kv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83080/original/image-20150527-4857-1cvx6kv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83080/original/image-20150527-4857-1cvx6kv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/83080/original/image-20150527-4857-1cvx6kv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Spot the difference?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/4533858031/in/photolist-qT1PN-9xiqpp-9xiqpx-9xiqpr-5b2MHh-5aU9hR-4CDoyh-rySru9-5mX2kk-8vDnMM-nUzs8q-6djtNT-76jYsG-9x7pwk-76xEx9-eLnzMu-7UDd34-t9BWaQ-9S9exX-aJzSjv">Anders Sandberg/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Decoding genetics</h2>
<p>In the 1970s Frederick Sanger <a href="http://www.dnalc.org/view/15479-Sanger-method-of-DNA-sequencing-3D-animation-with-narration.html">devised a method</a> of automatically reading and sequencing DNA. Sanger sequencing allowed biologists to study the genes (the stretch of DNA coding for a specific trait that is passed down through generations) of invasive species and piece together much information about their genomes (the complete sets of all their genes and DNA) and evolution. </p>
<p>Genetic techniques also enhance management of invasive species. They <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04773.x/full">are essential</a> for informed sustainable policy decisions.</p>
<p>For example, comparing genetic variation within and between populations allows biologists to understand how invading species spread, mix and compete with native species. This has given researchers a better understanding of the routes that invasive animals such as <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035815">sea squirts</a>, <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009743#s3">ladybirds</a> and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eva.12071/full">invertebrate pests</a> took when colonising new areas.</p>
<p>Biologists can also use genetic techniques to catch invasions earlier by detecting animals’ DNA in the environment from shed material such as skin or urine. This was demonstrated by detecting the DNA of an <a href="http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/4/4/423">invasive bullfrog</a> in French ponds much earlier than the invasion would otherwise have been noticed. </p>
<h2>Genomic leap forward</h2>
<p>Over the past decade, genetics has slowly been caught by the study of genomics, which offers a much more comprehensive view of DNA because it involves sequencing the entire genome rather than just a number of genes. Studying the genome enables us to analyse variability between invasive populations in greater detail and sensitivity.</p>
<p>Since next-generation sequencing technology <a href="https://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/">drastically reduced</a> the price of DNA sequencing in the mid-2000s, scientists have been able to explore hundreds of thousands of regions of DNA, rather than the tens used in genetic studies. Genomics has also helped to create new tools to assist our study of invasive species. </p>
<p>Studying organisms’ full genomes also introduces an extremely <a href="http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v4/n12/full/nrg1226.html">powerful method</a> to study the evolutionary history of invasive species. It allows biologists to distinguish the neutral DNA changes that all organisms undergo but that don’t spread through a species, from positive changes that improve an organism’s chances of survival and reproduction and so do spread.</p>
<p>This positively-selected evolution drives the fast adaptation of invasive species. So by understanding the effects of positive evolution, we can predict how species might adapt in the future. </p>
<p>Genomics has yet to realise <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276178246_Applications_of_next-generation_sequencing_to_the_study_of_biological_invasions">its potential</a> in invasion biology, but invasion genetics is slowly progressing into invasion genomics. Both disciplines offer a cost-effective solution to the monitoring and management of invasive species. For example, a <a href="http://www.fws.gov/midwest/fisheries/eDNA.html">programme exists</a> in the US for early detection of the invasive Asian Carp in the Great Lakes. This early detection, which involves sampling water to check for shed DNA material, will save significant sums in managing the invasive fish.</p>
<p>If more widely and effectively employed, genetic and genomic techniques have the potential to save both natural environments and the public purse from the environmental side-effects of globalisation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/41806/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steven Bourne does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Genetic techniques are helping scientists work out how to stop invasive species before they rack up huge environmental and financial costs.Steven Bourne, PhD Student Invasion Genomics, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/261332014-05-06T11:25:07Z2014-05-06T11:25:07ZTen-year research reveals new leads for anthrax vaccine<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/47872/original/zt2rt8p7-1399372704.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Anthrax in the mail can be deadly.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Belga Photo/Yves Boucau</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Anthrax occupies a special role as a feared and potentially lethal disease, but the culmination of a ten-year research project has identified a section of its toxin that could produce an effective new vaccine. Published in <a href="http://www.plospathogens.org/">PLOS Pathogens</a>, colleagues and I have found a new inroad to developing an anthrax vaccine.</p>
<p>Since the Cold War, anthrax has had special status through the notion that it might be weaponised as an agent of biowarfare. Its <a href="http://www.npr.org/2011/02/15/93170200/timeline-how-the-anthrax-terror-unfolded">use as a biological weapon in 2001</a>, with spores sent through the US postal system, killed five people, infected 17 others.</p>
<p>Anthrax is caused by the bacterium <em>Bacillus anthracis</em>. It produces spores that release toxins, which can be inhaled, ingested or absorbed into the skin. Those infected by it may suffer disease ranging from treatable skin lesions to sepsis over the whole body. If the spores hit our lungs or intestines they can cause death within a few days. An <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plague/sverdlovsk/">accident in 1979 at a military facility in Russia</a> accidentally released anthrax spores and more than 100 people died.</p>
<p>Although anthrax has <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000461">existed for millennia</a>, it has not actually had a major impact on humans, except for occupational exposure in those working with livestock, animal skins or wool, because it exists as long-lived spores in the soil and in the hides of livestock. What has led to work on vaccines more recently, however, is the fear of its use by armies or terrorists and a high value has been placed on ensuring that military personnel are effectively vaccinated.</p>
<p>Initial anthrax vaccines used weakened forms of the anthrax spore, which is a common way of developing vaccines. But its use led to concerns over high levels of “adverse reactions” – both soreness where the injection is delivered and heavy fevers. Until recently, vaccines used to protect against anthrax had been the <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2783700/">AVA (Biothrax) vaccine in the US and AVP vaccine in the UK</a>. </p>
<p>Both of these use weakened samples of the bacteria to enable the body to produce antibodies that target one of the key anthrax toxins, the “protective antigen” or “PA”. The idea here is that high levels of antibody to this antigen would mop up and neutralise any incoming anthrax spores before they can do damage. Next generation vaccines work on the same principle, but still require frequent topping up to maintain immunity.</p>
<h2>Lethal factor</h2>
<p>The toxic effects of anthrax are caused by a combination of three proteins: protective antigen (PA), edema factor (EF) and lethal factor (LF). Our new study reappraised our immune response when exposed to anthrax. So far, existing vaccines have focused on the PA protein, but we decided to look at the lethal factor after learning of farmers and shepherds in the Kayseri region of Turkey who recover from anthrax and never seem to be afflicted by it again.</p>
<p>These farmers and shepherds often had strong, presumably protective immunity to anthrax antigens that seemed to target LF more than PA.</p>
<p>With this in mind, we mapped antigen recognition in exposed and recovered farmers and compared it with biodefense workers who were given the old vaccine containing, as well as in mice. Because white blood cells carry a memory of the pathogens they have previously encountered, allowing a faster and more potent immune response on next encounter, it was possible to track how immunity developed after exposure to both LF and PA.</p>
<h2>Surprising findings</h2>
<p>There were a number of interesting and sometimes surprising findings. In mapping the antigens, we found some regions that were recognised exceptionally strongly by the immune response. We identified one stretch of 20 to 30 amino acids within LF that caught our attention due to its ability to bind strongly to very diverse human tissue types and, perhaps as a consequence of this, stimulate very powerful, protective immune responses from the relevant white blood cells, “T cells”.</p>
<p>Regions such as this could easily be incorporated into vaccines and we were able to use an LF-based vaccine of this type to successfully protect mice from the toxic effects of anthrax spores. </p>
<p>While this remains some way off development of vaccines for clinical trials in humans, the work points the way to developing a vaccine that may be a little more empirical and fleet of foot than traditional ones, building in data on the strongest antigens targeted by the body’s protective cells.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/26133/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Danny Altmann receives funding from the MRC, BBSRC, Wellcome Trust and NIH.</span></em></p>Anthrax occupies a special role as a feared and potentially lethal disease, but the culmination of a ten-year research project has identified a section of its toxin that could produce an effective new…Danny Altmann, Professor of Immunology, Imperial College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/226532014-02-03T14:24:23Z2014-02-03T14:24:23ZThe next pandemic could be downloaded from the internet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/40485/original/n2dshrzb-1391429323.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C29%2C800%2C540&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Too much information could be a recipe for disaster.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Abode of Chaos</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last October, scientists in California <a href="http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4442/20131015/botulinum-toxin-type-h-deadliest-known-antidote-discovered.htm">sequenced</a> the DNA for the “type H” botulinum toxin. One gram of this toxin would be sufficient to kill <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24398-new-botox-supertoxin-has-its-details-censored.html#.Uupu_Xd_tki">half a billion people</a>, making it the deadliest substance yet discovered – with no antidote. The DNA sequence was not placed on public databases, marking the first time genetic code has been withheld from the public over security concerns.</p>
<p>As biological discoveries accelerate, we may need to censor even more genetic data. The line between digital data and our physical world is not as clear cut as it once was, with the advent of 3D printing technologies and DNA synthesisers. Many people are familiar with the first <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22421185">printed gun</a>, cited heavily by the media as a dangerous development. But many would probably be surprised to learn that analogous technology is used to print pathogens. For example, the polio virus was successfully <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5583/1016">recreated</a> in 2002, and the 1918 flu virus was <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5745/28.summary">resurrected</a> by a DNA synthesiser in 2005.</p>
<h2>Pandora’s box 2.0</h2>
<p>The machines that make this resurrection possible serve many legitimate research purposes. Instead of painstakingly manipulating DNA in a local lab, scientists can get made-to-order sequences from a variety of DNA synthesis companies from around the world. Alternatively, if they have some extra cash and desk space, they could get one of the machines right <a href="http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1311.R1.TR2.TRC1.A0.XDNA+synthesizer&_nkw=dna+synthesizer&_sacat=0&_from=R40">here on Ebay</a>. Access to such a machine gives scientists a critical edge in many areas of genomics research.</p>
<p>But the increasing accessibility to this technology raises concerns about the “dual-use” nature of it as an unprecedented weapon. President Obama was worried enough to commission <a href="http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10.pdf">a report</a> on the safety of synthetic biology, while volunteers have <a href="http://peccoud.vbi.vt.edu/resources/tools/genoguard-a-biosecurity-solution-for-the-gene-synthesis-industry/">created software</a> to detect malicious DNA sequences before an unsuspecting company prints them out. </p>
<h2>Is ignorance bliss?</h2>
<p>These are important first steps to more security, but they don’t take us far enough. Part of the reason is due to something we call an “<a href="http://www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf">information hazard</a>.”</p>
<p>For the first time in human history, knowledge that is discovered has a reasonable chance of never being forgotten. And while this would normally be a great thing, it also creates a ratchet effect with dangerous information – once a bit of malicious code is online, the whole world can dissect and modify it.</p>
<p>We saw this with the infamous <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/19/stuxnets_secret_twin_iran_nukes_cyber_attack">Stuxnet virus</a> which appeared in 2010 – an elegantly created computer virus designed to hack Iranian nuclear labs and manipulate centrifuges to the point of breaking them. While this may have been a strategic boon for Israel and the United States, we now must contend with the availability of Stuxnet’s source code, which was later posted to Github. The genius mechanisms the virus used to bypass security systems are now available to the world for delivery of alternative cyber payloads.</p>
<p>If a similar dynamic emerged with biological code rather than computer code, the results could be catastrophic. About a century ago, 50m people died due to a particularly lethal strain of flu, the genome of which is available online. And <a href="http://bit.ly/1fAYDjo">it is estimated</a> that if the same virus were to be released today, the initial death toll could top 80m. Any knowledge or technology that has the capability for such destruction ought to be handled with the same caution we give to nuclear secrets, even if it means slowing the advances in medical biotechnology.</p>
<h2>International agreements</h2>
<p>In 2004, George Church from Harvard Medical School argued in favour of a number of US regulations in his “Synthetic Biohazard Non-Proliferation <a href="http://arep.med.harvard.edu/SBP/Church_Biohazard04c.htm">Proposal</a>.” First and foremost, he proposed that the DNA synthesis machines should be tracked and only available to licensed companies, nonprofits, or government entities. These licensed bodies should in turn be subject to strict regulations and frequent safety testing. But the stability of Church’s proposal is compromised from the difficulties of international enforcement – should any country reject these regulations, the danger still persists.</p>
<p>The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, which originally codified an international agreement against the development of biological weapons, should be revamped to be fully effective. Only a multilateral approach can fully solve the regulation problem associated with synthetic biology, since viruses can spread across international borders as quickly as the airplanes carrying them.</p>
<p>We also need to give some serious thought to how openly we want to develop biotechnology. As Nick Bostrom, founder of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, once <a href="http://www.nickbostrom.com/information-hazards.pdf">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is said that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It is an open question whether more knowledge is safer. Even if our best bet is that more knowledge is on average good, we should recognise that there are numerous cases in which more knowledge makes things worse. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>In the case of synthetic pathogens, our probing could indeed make things much worse if we’re not careful.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/22653/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Snyder-Beattie is an Academic Project Manager at the Future of Humanity Institute. FHI's research includes analysing the extreme tail risks of technological development.</span></em></p>Last October, scientists in California sequenced the DNA for the “type H” botulinum toxin. One gram of this toxin would be sufficient to kill half a billion people, making it the deadliest substance yet…Andrew Snyder-Beattie, Academic Project Manager, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/75382012-06-20T20:42:13Z2012-06-20T20:42:13ZChallenge 10: Transnational security threats - new research and converging strategies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/11507/original/dcbzzgy7-1339044517.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Muslim women pass bombed Christian shops in Nigeria: researchers and policymakers are developing complex views of organised violence.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/EPA/Ruth McDowall</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>In part 10 of the multi-disciplinary Millennium Project series, Alex Burns argues that we are getting more sophisticated in our approach to global threats and conflict.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/Global_Challenges/chall-10.html">Global challenge 10</a>: How can shared values and new security strategies reduce ethnic conflicts, terrorism, and the use of weapons of mass destruction?</strong></p>
<p>International research programs seek to provide policymakers with actionable insights about transnational security threats. Terrorism, ethnic conflicts, and the potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are <a href="https://theconversation.com/wicked-problems-and-business-strategy-is-design-thinking-an-answer-6876">wicked problems</a> which have shaped the past decade of research agendas. New research suggests converging strategies to anticipate and deal proactively with trans-national security threats.</p>
<p>The Obama administration’s counterterrorism agenda is shaped by Osama bin Laden’s death at Abottabad, Pakistan on 2nd May 2011; the increased use of robot drones; and speculative fears of cyber-warfare attacks. Overlooked is Obama’s <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/National_Strategy_for_Countering_BioThreats.pdf">National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats</a>. Gregory Koblentz <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01061.x/pdf">contends</a> in International Affairs that Obama’s strategy is preventative; that its definition of biosecurity focuses on improving global health security (pandemics and disease prevention); and that intelligence and law enforcement personnel must work more closely with the life sciences and public health. Obama has shifted from the Bush administration’s focus on attack prevention to strengthening multilateral treaties and improving organisational coordination.</p>
<p>The changing international environment also influences how law enforcement and judicial researchers view transnational terrorism. John T. Picarelli of the United States Department of Justice <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09546553.2011.648349">suggests</a> in Terrorism and Political Violence that organised criminal organisations are undergoing threat convergence: long-term cooperation between the two types of groups which increasingly resemble each-other. However, Picarelli also found that there is little basic research and empirical datasets. Historical and international political economy methods may provide greater analytical clarity whilst datasets would enable integration with geographic information system mapping.</p>
<p>In contrast to terrorist threat convergence, a data-driven approach yields research insights about the causes of ethnic conflicts. The UCDP/PRIO <a href="http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/datasets/ucdp_non-state_conflict_dataset_/">Non-State Conflict Dataset</a> hosted at Uppsala University’s Department of Peace and Conflict Research provides new insights into “communal and organised armed conflict where none of the parties is the government of a state.” The dataset examines the period 1989-2010 and covers communal, ethnic, and paramilitary conflicts. It is part of a UCDP/PRIO collection of datasets on conflict.</p>
<p>Uppsala University’s Ralph Sundberg, Kristine Eck, and Joakim Kreutz have used the dataset to examine Somalia’s ethnic conflict after the end of Siad Barre’s regime in 1991. Sundberg, Eck and Kreutz found a series of overlapping conflicts in Somalia: clan and tribal fighting motivated by scarce resources, organised militias that split into warring factions, and state-based conflict that occurs primarily in urban areas. Somalia’s conflict thus has a range of actors and geographic-specific forms of political violence.</p>
<p>Nigeria since the 1960s has experienced ethnic conflicts. Ray Ikechukwu Jacob <a href="http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/15959">recently estimated</a> in Asian Social Science that 50,000 Nigerians were killed between 1999 and 2004, and 800,000 people were displaced. Jacob contends that Nigeria’s recent ethnic conflicts are based on unintended consequences of the 1946 Richards Constitution (named after Britain’s then colonial administrator, Governor Arthur Richards) which enabled “unity in diversity”, or a range of religious beliefs in different regions. This legislative implementation created the conditions for conflict between Christian militias, Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and rival armed gangs who established a kidnap and ransom market amidst high unemployment and problems with Nigeria’s judiciary and law enforcement. The decision of northern states to implement Shari’a law and to marginalise Christians means that ethnic conflict is traceable to political decision-making and leadership manipulation.</p>
<p>2011 marked the tenth anniversary of Al Qaeda’s terrorist attacks on September 11, and the October 2001 anthrax letter incidents. Two international organisations — the Seventh Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Review Conference and the <a href="http://www.g8.fr/evian/english/navigation/2003_g8_summit/summit_documents/global_partnership_against_the_spread_of_weapons_and_materials_of_mass_destruction_-_g8_senior_officials_group_-_annual_report.html">G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction</a> — made progress on counter-proliferation strategies for non-state actors. Gerald Epstein of the American Association for Advancement of Science <a href="http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/70224489/biosecurity-2011-not-year-change-minds">counsels</a> in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that counter-proliferation initiatives should augment their threat-based approach with partner-based awareness of the life sciences and other emerging areas of scientific research.</p>
<p>Dr Jorge Morales Pedraza, formerly of the International Atomic Energy Agency, this year <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/4474506l244659r8/?MUD=MP">proposed</a> in the journal Public Organization Review an Organisation for the Prohibition of Biological Weapons (OPBW) within the United Nations system. The OPBW would supervise the BWC’s implementation by UN member nation-states. It would strengthen the BWC’s verification mechanisms, which the United States fears could be used for foreign espionage in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, the life sciences, and other sensitive industries. Pedraza’s proposed OPBW would help the UN to foresee and adapt to a changing international environment.</p>
<p>Collectively, this new research points to a convergence of new strategies to deal with transnational security threats. Academic researchers are using empirical datasets and mixed-method designs to understand terrorism, ethnic conflicts, and the potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in new ways. Policymakers are building on shared values to strengthen multilateral treaty conventions and international organisations. Both academics and policymakers are adapting to a more complex global environment, and new strategies of resilience have displaced threat preparation.</p>
<p><em>Comments welcome below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/7538/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Burns does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and is affiliated with the American Political Science Association and the International Studies Association.</span></em></p>In part 10 of the multi-disciplinary Millennium Project series, Alex Burns argues that we are getting more sophisticated in our approach to global threats and conflict. Global challenge 10: How can shared…Alex Burns, Research Facilitator, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.