Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Diplomats and technical experts from 87 nations last month moved a step
closer to a system for verifying compliance with the Biological Weapons
Convention. At a review conference in Geneva, the delegates also agreed
to lift some of the secrecy that surrounds research into biological agents.

Diplomatic infighting, however, sabotaged efforts to create a permanent
body to keep a watch on developments in biological weapons. The convention,
drawn up in 1972, bans ‘offensive’ research on viruses or bacteria, but
allows research aimed at defending against the same diseases. The difference
between prohibited and permitted research is essentially one of intent,
making violations of the treaty extremely difficult to detect. Peter Vereker,
head of the arms control and disarmament department at Britain’s Foreign
Office, says the equipment used in biological weapons programmes is sometimes
identical to that used in life-saving medical research.

Revelations about the biological arsenal built up by Iraq spurred delegates
at the Geneva meeting to search for practical ways to make the treaty enforceable
(This Week, 7 September). They agreed to set up an international group to
investigate verification measures, which will meet in March.

For the immediate future, delegates agreed to bolster a set of ‘confidence
boosting measures’ to encourage more openness. These call on countries to
release greater detail on centres used for research into vaccines, information
about disease patterns and unusual outbreaks of infections, and past offensive
and defensive programmes.

Julian Perry Robinson, who heads the arms limitation group at the Science
Policy Research Unit in Sussex, says: ‘The more information you exchange
about these things, the more confidence people have that they can see the
whole picture.’

Barbara Rosenberg, an observer at the meeting for the Federation of
American Å®ÉúСÊÓƵs, says nations have commonly ignored past requirements
to report on their biological research. ‘Nothing was done to ensure a better
response this time,’ she says.

Most nations expected the conference to set up a secretariat to encourage
compliance with these measures and monitor developments between reviews.
But according to Rosenberg, a diplomatic squabble erupted between nations
of Eastern Europe and the nonaligned bloc over which group would provide
the leader of the secretariat. In the end, the entire plan for the secretariat
was scrapped. The role was being left to an uncoordinated group of ‘friends
of the convention’, says Robinson.

Vereker believes one of the most important changes to come from Geneva
is the renewed emphasis on export controls – a direct response to events
in Iraq. ‘We are looking at our own legislation in this area to see if we
should tighten up,’ he says.