6 ms·

Darpa Is Making Insects That Can Deliver Bioweapons, Scientists Claim

122 points by prostoalex 8y ago

philipkglass 8y ago
The same capabilities that are necessary to test defenses against chemical and biological attacks also prepare the way for offensive applications. If party A doesn't trust B, they are naturally wary of B's calls for A to halt defensive research. If B doesn't trust A, they are naturally wary that said "defensive" research is merely a precursor to or cover for weaponization. Party Z may later come along and use the research of parties A-Y to their own ends (e.g. Aum Shinrikyo cribbing the chemistry of nerve agents from open chemistry literature, poisoning people for their own weird reasons.) I personally don't think that DARPA actually wants famine-causing bioweapons. The US has a large nuclear arsenal should it ever want to inflict mass destruction on the world, and its incentives align against making mass destruction cheaper or more accessible. But I can also understand why countries the US is hostile to may be less assured than I am. I can also understand the point of critics who worry that if this sort of research becomes normal and openly published, results may be later weaponized by some group, maybe a group that's not even a nation state. If you're interested in issues like this, I can recommend the book "A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Chemical and Biological Warfare" by Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman. Caveats: I found some technical errors in areas where I have knowledge (chemistry). It goes beyond documented history into speculation in places. But it's what first introduced me to the complicated issues around trust and Janus-like defensive-offensive R&D in this area; those have remained useful insights.
- bigmonads 8y ago
  Significant difference is that nuclear weapons are not deniable, bioweapons are. The United States (and allies) have already used rain seeding, river damns, and a number of other techniques for damaging adversary nation's economic and agricultural abilities. It's even a relatively common practice in geopolitics (India uses the Indus river as a carrot/stick against Pakistan).
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > The United States (and allies) have already used rain seeding, river damns, and a number of other techniques for damaging adversary nation's economic and agricultural abilities. Would you provide more information in the form of a reliable source?
    - tonmoy 8y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye
    - zorkw4rg 8y ago
      "Operation Popeye (Project Controlled Weather Popeye / Motorpool / Intermediary-Compatriot) was a highly classified weather modification program in Southeast Asia during 1967–1972. The cloud seeding operation during the Vietnam War ran from March 20, 1967 until July 5, 1972 in an attempt to extend the monsoon season." [1] "After World War II, the U.S. military bombed dams in North Korea and North Vietnam to destroy the communist governments’ electricity and irrigation infrastructure. This was, until the Iran-Iraq War, the final occurrence of such soggy tactics. In 1977 the Geneva Conventions specifically outlawed the targeting of water infrastructure in wartime." [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye [2] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dam-warfare-3da6ee24518a https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dam-warfare-3da6ee24518a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Vietnam%27s_dikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Vietnam%27s_dikes
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - jsoc815 8y ago
    Nukes, in the general sense, also cause massive destruction of an area and make it uninhabitable for long periods. The "targeted" use of bioweapons (in theory) allows for the clearing of people sans the mess and down time. I'm pretty sure that that is common knowledge and openly discussed among people who care about such stuff.
- TrainedMonkey 8y ago
  Biohazard by Ken Alibek is pretty descriptive of Soviet bio research efforts and denials of such. It does, however, read like fiction.
- John_KZ 8y ago
  If they wanted to counter a biological weapons attack on food crops, they would be creating a detection network, a facility to produce a specific compound to counter the threat, and a delivery network comprising of dusting aircraft. They would NOT be creating mosquito-delivered viruses. Through public research. Now their enemies have access to the same technology too. What's the fucking point? To kickstart a biological weapons race? IMHO the US needs to put a cap on the emerging bioweapons race right now. Academics can be part of it, please deny developing dual-use technologies like this, which is obviously single-use. The world is going to become a horrifying place to live in if this trend continuous the way it's set.
- ashelmire 8y ago
  Your points are true for all technology. It can be used for good or evil. I work almost exclusively under DARPA grants doing NLP work - things like automated sentiment analysis might be used to detect fake news or to fabricate it. Detecting people tweeting about a need for medical supplies in some obscure language could be used to provide those supplies, or to confirm that your bomb just destroyed their stash. I think you’re correct in your assessment - the US already has all the destructive power it needs. We spend more effort today on relief or more precise strikes.
devoply 8y ago
If you can make insects that can deliver viruses to save plants you can use insects to destroy food supplies of "enemies" and cause famine.
- hourislate 8y ago
  About 18-20 years ago I remember reading a thread where a poster basically said (as a counter to China) that the US has developed a blight that could basically wipe out all the rice in the world. It would be deployed via Mosquito and according to the poster had the ability to spread quickly and leave over 3 billion people without their main staple of food. Not a single shot would need to be fired. Within 6 months half the worlds population would be gone. I figure a day where this will be a reality is completely possible if not already. Quite disturbing....
  - clear_dg 8y ago
    > Within 6 months half the worlds population would be gone. Within 6 months, a country with nuclear weapons is forced in a desperate situation. What could go wrong? Is there really a point to such a scenario between nuclear powers? It doesn't make much sense to me. The US might as well launch all its warheads from the start.
    - fapjacks 8y ago
      Of course, it's about plausible deniability and logistics: You can't launch your nuclear arsenal and then look deadpan at the camera and shrug your shoulders. But killing a third of the world's population with insects sounds so unbelievable that there would be skepticism even if the President held a news conference and claimed responsibility right into the microphone.
      - clear_dg 8y ago
        Who cares about deniability or skepticism in an apocalyptic scenario as described? Do you really think cool heads would prevail if China was put in a such a situation? Chaos, and desperate people would be the result, with a nuclear arsenal in the mix. And they would, most likely, blame whoever they want, proofs and rationality be damned. Keep in mind, I don't deny that the military can find uses for what the article describes. But, to go from this, to deliberately provoking WW3 by massively launching such a weapon on China is suicide. It would provoke a counter-attack, guaranteed, no matter the political arguments. Plausible deniability is fine when the targeted countries can't counter-attack, or the matter is relatively minor. But, directly against China and with world-ending repercussions? No way.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pjmorris 8y ago
Who spends more? DARPA on weaponized insects, or The Gates Foundation on eradicating malaria by controlling mosquitos?
- partycoder 8y ago
  Malaria is the reason settler colonialism failed in Africa. If you remove malaria, Africa will be inevitably invaded by colonial settlers.
  - dmichulke 8y ago
    To substantiate your point - that's also what I read (specifically regarding sub-saharan Africa). South Africa is the only exception due to it being much more elevated. Source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prisoners-Geography-Everything-Global-Politics/dp/1783961414 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prisoners-Geography-Everything-Glob...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- kiliantics 8y ago
  It's a combined effort really. Gates is using effective PR campaigns and the help of DARPA funding to basically conduct military research on the African ecosystems under the auspices of philanthropy. The project was not democratically demanded or organised according to the will of the people affected. The like of it sure as shit wouldn't slide in the West. But Bill Gates is one of the "Good Guys" so we are told to applaud this.
kleopullin 8y ago
Really? How many insects to genetically modify the Ukraine's wheat? I, too, wonder what they're doing. This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a buzz.
- ryanhuff 8y ago
  With so many crops engineered to withstand a particular herbicide like glyphosate, how likely is it that this standardization also creates a single bio profile that can be targeted?
  - killjoywashere 8y ago
    If a bacteria gains antibiotic resistance, we declare the bug stronger and ourselves vulnerable. If we make wheat resistant to an herbicide, we declare it weaker and ourselves vulnerable.
compelledToken 8y ago
I kind of developed a hunch that maybe the Zika outbreak might've been cooked up in some lab in Siberia or Mongolia, and got dumped into South America as a warning shot. But honestly, who knows? Everything feels like the rumblings of full-spectrum warfare these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance
- ispiansclsda 8y ago
  Humans literally are not good enough at biochemistry to have created Zika.
  - insalada 8y ago
    Humans literally are not good enough at biochemistry to have created small pox. So what? That doesn't preclude innoculating and incubating hosts as carriers, and spreading it around. literally literally literally
    - ispiansclsda 8y ago
      Dickhead.
noobermin 8y ago
How is this a good idea? How do you know the insects you make won't get out and kill you and your whole army?
- fucking_tragedy 8y ago
  I mean, imagine Dr. Strangelove, but with bugs instead of bombs.
2918273756663 8y ago
Before I saw the article, I was thinking they were going to talk about SHRIMP[0] (SHort-Range Independent Microrobotic Platforms) It's the upcoming DARPA Challenge for design improvements in insect-scale robotics. This includes miniature actuators, efficient and extremely compact high voltage DC-to-DC power converters to drive those small actuators with large forces, denser batteries, then putting everything together in autonomous systems. [0] https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/SHRIMP_Proposers_Day_DIST_A_FINAL_v2_PostingtoBAA.pdf https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/SHRIMP_Proposers_Day_DIST_...
MichaelMoser123 8y ago
Does this funding contradict the biological weapons treaty? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Conventio... I got it - the system could be used in multiple ways so that the weapons aspect is deniable.
YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
Link to the Science editorial: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/crop-protecting-insects-could-be-turned-bioweapons-critics-warn http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/crop-protecting-insec...
Ritsuko_akagi 8y ago
this is the beginning of the end
emernic 8y ago
Trying to stop any synthetic biology research that might have military applications is like trying to stop fission research in the late 1930s. Rather than attempting to stifle research, we need to start thinking about how we regulate, detect, and defend against potential threats. DARPA's synbio research is at least mostly carried out in academic labs (which have a strong incentive to publicize their work).
vfclists 8y ago
"Worst Movies of All Time: These Films Got 0 Percent on Rotten Tomatoes" "The 100 Best Films of All Time, According to Critics" "The 25 Most Powerful Passports in the World" "50 Surprising Facts About Queen Elizabeth II" Is this news? Newsweek seems to have gone totally down the bog.

122 points by prostoalex 8y ago

The same capabilities that are necessary to test defenses against chemical and biological attacks also prepare the way for offensive applications. If party A doesn't trust B, they are naturally wary of B's calls for A to halt defensive research. If B doesn't trust A, they are naturally wary that said "defensive" research is merely a precursor to or cover for weaponization. Party Z may later come along and use the research of parties A-Y to their own ends (e.g. Aum Shinrikyo cribbing the chemistry of nerve agents from open chemistry literature, poisoning people for their own weird reasons.) I personally don't think that DARPA actually wants famine-causing bioweapons. The US has a large nuclear arsenal should it ever want to inflict mass destruction on the world, and its incentives align against making mass destruction cheaper or more accessible. But I can also understand why countries the US is hostile to may be less assured than I am. I can also understand the point of critics who worry that if this sort of research becomes normal and openly published, results may be later weaponized by some group, maybe a group that's not even a nation state. If you're interested in issues like this, I can recommend the book "A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret History of Chemical and Biological Warfare" by Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman. Caveats: I found some technical errors in areas where I have knowledge (chemistry). It goes beyond documented history into speculation in places. But it's what first introduced me to the complicated issues around trust and Janus-like defensive-offensive R&D in this area; those have remained useful insights.

bigmonads 8y ago
Significant difference is that nuclear weapons are not deniable, bioweapons are. The United States (and allies) have already used rain seeding, river damns, and a number of other techniques for damaging adversary nation's economic and agricultural abilities. It's even a relatively common practice in geopolitics (India uses the Indus river as a carrot/stick against Pakistan).
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > The United States (and allies) have already used rain seeding, river damns, and a number of other techniques for damaging adversary nation's economic and agricultural abilities. Would you provide more information in the form of a reliable source?
  - tonmoy 8y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye
  - zorkw4rg 8y ago
    "Operation Popeye (Project Controlled Weather Popeye / Motorpool / Intermediary-Compatriot) was a highly classified weather modification program in Southeast Asia during 1967–1972. The cloud seeding operation during the Vietnam War ran from March 20, 1967 until July 5, 1972 in an attempt to extend the monsoon season." [1] "After World War II, the U.S. military bombed dams in North Korea and North Vietnam to destroy the communist governments’ electricity and irrigation infrastructure. This was, until the Iran-Iraq War, the final occurrence of such soggy tactics. In 1977 the Geneva Conventions specifically outlawed the targeting of water infrastructure in wartime." [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Popeye [2] https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dam-warfare-3da6ee24518a https://medium.com/war-is-boring/dam-warfare-3da6ee24518a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Vietnam%27s_dikes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Vietnam%27s_dikes
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- jsoc815 8y ago
  Nukes, in the general sense, also cause massive destruction of an area and make it uninhabitable for long periods. The "targeted" use of bioweapons (in theory) allows for the clearing of people sans the mess and down time. I'm pretty sure that that is common knowledge and openly discussed among people who care about such stuff.
TrainedMonkey 8y ago
Biohazard by Ken Alibek is pretty descriptive of Soviet bio research efforts and denials of such. It does, however, read like fiction.
John_KZ 8y ago
If they wanted to counter a biological weapons attack on food crops, they would be creating a detection network, a facility to produce a specific compound to counter the threat, and a delivery network comprising of dusting aircraft. They would NOT be creating mosquito-delivered viruses. Through public research. Now their enemies have access to the same technology too. What's the fucking point? To kickstart a biological weapons race? IMHO the US needs to put a cap on the emerging bioweapons race right now. Academics can be part of it, please deny developing dual-use technologies like this, which is obviously single-use. The world is going to become a horrifying place to live in if this trend continuous the way it's set.
ashelmire 8y ago
Your points are true for all technology. It can be used for good or evil. I work almost exclusively under DARPA grants doing NLP work - things like automated sentiment analysis might be used to detect fake news or to fabricate it. Detecting people tweeting about a need for medical supplies in some obscure language could be used to provide those supplies, or to confirm that your bomb just destroyed their stash. I think you’re correct in your assessment - the US already has all the destructive power it needs. We spend more effort today on relief or more precise strikes.

devoply 8y ago

If you can make insects that can deliver viruses to save plants you can use insects to destroy food supplies of "enemies" and cause famine.

hourislate 8y ago
About 18-20 years ago I remember reading a thread where a poster basically said (as a counter to China) that the US has developed a blight that could basically wipe out all the rice in the world. It would be deployed via Mosquito and according to the poster had the ability to spread quickly and leave over 3 billion people without their main staple of food. Not a single shot would need to be fired. Within 6 months half the worlds population would be gone. I figure a day where this will be a reality is completely possible if not already. Quite disturbing....
- clear_dg 8y ago
  > Within 6 months half the worlds population would be gone. Within 6 months, a country with nuclear weapons is forced in a desperate situation. What could go wrong? Is there really a point to such a scenario between nuclear powers? It doesn't make much sense to me. The US might as well launch all its warheads from the start.
  - fapjacks 8y ago
    Of course, it's about plausible deniability and logistics: You can't launch your nuclear arsenal and then look deadpan at the camera and shrug your shoulders. But killing a third of the world's population with insects sounds so unbelievable that there would be skepticism even if the President held a news conference and claimed responsibility right into the microphone.
    - clear_dg 8y ago
      Who cares about deniability or skepticism in an apocalyptic scenario as described? Do you really think cool heads would prevail if China was put in a such a situation? Chaos, and desperate people would be the result, with a nuclear arsenal in the mix. And they would, most likely, blame whoever they want, proofs and rationality be damned. Keep in mind, I don't deny that the military can find uses for what the article describes. But, to go from this, to deliberately provoking WW3 by massively launching such a weapon on China is suicide. It would provoke a counter-attack, guaranteed, no matter the political arguments. Plausible deniability is fine when the targeted countries can't counter-attack, or the matter is relatively minor. But, directly against China and with world-ending repercussions? No way.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

pjmorris 8y ago

Who spends more? DARPA on weaponized insects, or The Gates Foundation on eradicating malaria by controlling mosquitos?

partycoder 8y ago
Malaria is the reason settler colonialism failed in Africa. If you remove malaria, Africa will be inevitably invaded by colonial settlers.
- dmichulke 8y ago
  To substantiate your point - that's also what I read (specifically regarding sub-saharan Africa). South Africa is the only exception due to it being much more elevated. Source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prisoners-Geography-Everything-Global-Politics/dp/1783961414 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Prisoners-Geography-Everything-Glob...
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
kiliantics 8y ago
It's a combined effort really. Gates is using effective PR campaigns and the help of DARPA funding to basically conduct military research on the African ecosystems under the auspices of philanthropy. The project was not democratically demanded or organised according to the will of the people affected. The like of it sure as shit wouldn't slide in the West. But Bill Gates is one of the "Good Guys" so we are told to applaud this.

kleopullin 8y ago

Really? How many insects to genetically modify the Ukraine's wheat? I, too, wonder what they're doing. This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a buzz.

ryanhuff 8y ago
With so many crops engineered to withstand a particular herbicide like glyphosate, how likely is it that this standardization also creates a single bio profile that can be targeted?
- killjoywashere 8y ago
  If a bacteria gains antibiotic resistance, we declare the bug stronger and ourselves vulnerable. If we make wheat resistant to an herbicide, we declare it weaker and ourselves vulnerable.

compelledToken 8y ago

I kind of developed a hunch that maybe the Zika outbreak might've been cooked up in some lab in Siberia or Mongolia, and got dumped into South America as a warning shot. But honestly, who knows? Everything feels like the rumblings of full-spectrum warfare these days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance

ispiansclsda 8y ago
Humans literally are not good enough at biochemistry to have created Zika.
- insalada 8y ago
  Humans literally are not good enough at biochemistry to have created small pox. So what? That doesn't preclude innoculating and incubating hosts as carriers, and spreading it around. literally literally literally
  - ispiansclsda 8y ago
    Dickhead.

noobermin 8y ago

How is this a good idea? How do you know the insects you make won't get out and kill you and your whole army?

fucking_tragedy 8y ago
I mean, imagine Dr. Strangelove, but with bugs instead of bombs.

2918273756663 8y ago

Before I saw the article, I was thinking they were going to talk about SHRIMP[0] (SHort-Range Independent Microrobotic Platforms) It's the upcoming DARPA Challenge for design improvements in insect-scale robotics. This includes miniature actuators, efficient and extremely compact high voltage DC-to-DC power converters to drive those small actuators with large forces, denser batteries, then putting everything together in autonomous systems. [0] https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/SHRIMP_Proposers_Day_DIST_A_FINAL_v2_PostingtoBAA.pdf https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/SHRIMP_Proposers_Day_DIST_...

MichaelMoser123 8y ago

Does this funding contradict the biological weapons treaty? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Conventio... I got it - the system could be used in multiple ways so that the weapons aspect is deniable.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

Link to the Science editorial: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/crop-protecting-insects-could-be-turned-bioweapons-critics-warn http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/10/crop-protecting-insec...

Ritsuko_akagi 8y ago

this is the beginning of the end

emernic 8y ago

Trying to stop any synthetic biology research that might have military applications is like trying to stop fission research in the late 1930s. Rather than attempting to stifle research, we need to start thinking about how we regulate, detect, and defend against potential threats. DARPA's synbio research is at least mostly carried out in academic labs (which have a strong incentive to publicize their work).

vfclists 8y ago

"Worst Movies of All Time: These Films Got 0 Percent on Rotten Tomatoes" "The 100 Best Films of All Time, According to Critics" "The 25 Most Powerful Passports in the World" "50 Surprising Facts About Queen Elizabeth II" Is this news? Newsweek seems to have gone totally down the bog.