With 2001's anthrax scares and discussion of the mysterious Gulf War Syndrome still in their memories, many Americans are more concerned about threats of biological and chemical terrorism in Iraq in the current conflict than in previous military engagements. However, Duke experts said such attacks are not substantially more likely in this war.
Much of what prevents use of biological weapons is the difficulty of infecting large numbers of people, said Dr. Keith Kaye, associate chair of the infectious diseases division in the School of Medicine.
"In battlefield situations, bioterrorism agents are not very effective. They're subject to environmental situations such as wind and climate change. It's somewhat unpredictable," he said, adding that the risk of infecting one's own troops is too high for most countries to accept.
Introducing these weapons through the water or food supply is ineffective because the agents often become too diluted to do substantial harm, Kaye said.
The fear of such weapons in Iraq is high, however, because Saddam Hussein has not shown normal reluctance to harm his own troops.
"Mr. Hussein has used them in the past - even on his own people - and would be likely to use them again, to save his failing regime," said Dr. Chris Woods, an assistant professor of medicine in the division of hematology.
Seth Weinberger, former defense analyst for the Pentagon and a fifth-year doctoral student in political science, said Iraq might refrain from using chemical weapons to keep other countries, such as Germany and France, out of the war.
"If Iraq uses chemical weapons, they lose a lot of the advantage they have because a lot of countries which have not joined the U.S. lose their moral high ground," he said. "However, if Saddam is about to lose his regime, that wouldn't be much of a factor."
Weinberger added that chemical and biological weapons are often kept under a close chain of command. Thus if Saddam is somehow incapacitated, it may be impossible to deploy such weapons.
Chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, VX gas and other nerve agents, tend to be immediately debilitating. Biological agents - including smallpox, anthrax and botulinum toxin - usually require an incubation period ranging from a few days to several weeks in length.
Although biological weapons have the potential to infect people without their knowledge, "in a battlefield situation, chemical weapons would be more useful, so the chemical agents are really of the greatest concern," said Woods.
Biological weapons are also less threatening since most soldiers are vaccinated against known agents, said Dr. Samuel Katz, professor emeritus of pediatrics in the infectious diseases division.
Katz, who has served on committees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the shortcoming of many vaccines is that many companies have stopped producing them in recent years.
"Our ability to make vaccines has been quite limited," he said. Many vaccines are also complicated to administer, he added. The anthrax vaccine, for example, requires a series of six injections and booster shots every six to 12 months.
The real danger, however, is if new biological agents, for which vaccines are not available, are developed into weapons. "There is always a possibility that those agents could be introduced, but I'd like to think it's unlikely," Katz said.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.