Who knows what the capabilities of
terrorists are?

Advances in science and technology will
undoubtedly increase terrorist capabilities
in the future.

But how and when? who knows...

We need realistic and comprehensive threat
assessments that consider all relevant factors.

Nations and Governments must take greater international
support of nonproliferation and other forms of
prevention.

I don't think it is impossible, but I don't think it is THAT easy either.

What we'd have to worry about in regards to bio-weapons is accidents at the facilities. There's a scary paper floating around the net about incidents involving near and actual outbreaks due to employee carelessness. Google it, it's there.

The chances of a terror cell getting something is remote, I believe. I also don't believe they are that 'romantic' as some would have you believe either. It ain't like buying an ounce of pot. You need to be IN THE KNOW to get it and as soon as you start asking you'll come up on the radar then just as swiftly be deleted off the radar.

There's a ZILLION things 'terrorists' could do to mess with a nation if they REALLY wanted that are WAY more effective and practicable than bio-stuff.

The general consensus seems to be that terrorists could not engage in sophisticated bio-engineering. Judging by what the STUDENT participants in the iGEM competition achieved, I am not so sure. The winning team engineered a vaccine for Helicobacter pylori, the microbe that causes stomach ulcers.

Others engineered E coli to tell the time.

See: http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55178/

This looks pretty sophisticated stuff to me.

I also think the psychological impact of a successful bio-weapon attack would be immense. Imagine if just a few hundred people in, say, London became infected with Ebola.

My guess is that an adequate bioscience facility could be built for a few million dollars. This is not out of reach of a terrorist organization with sympathisers among Saudi princes. It is a tiny fraction of the cost of building a facility to enrich uranium.

How would the terrorists get the "spare parts?" They could enter a team into iGEM and get a starter kit courtesy of MIT

The potential of them getting their hands on something is there but I'm more inclined to worry about getting stabbed, shot, assaulted or butchered by someone passing me by in my life that DOESN'T look different to me.

The prisons are full of them.

StG

You raise an interesting point. What are the risk factors we ought to be worried about?

In the US an average of 3,500 people are killed in traffic accidents every month. That exceeds the number killed on 9 / 11. In fact, since 9 / 11 more people in the US have died in traffic accidents EVERY MONTH than died as a result of the attack.

In the UK more people died as a result of traffic accidents in the second week of July 2005 than died as a result of the bombings that occurred during that week.

So far in industrialised countries, traffic accidents have been a greater risk factor by far than terrorism.

As risk factors go both terrorism and traffic accidents are dwarfed by the problems we bring on ourselves through smoking, substance abuse and a sedentary lifestyle. Picture a portly smoker downing his fourth beer and railing against the threat of terrorism prior to climbing into his car and driving off in a slightly inebriated state. That fellow is probably going to die, have a stroke or kill someone long before even the most assiduous terrorist can get to him.

So why do we talk so much about terrorism?

The short answer is that we don't.

How many people do you know who have made a new year's resolution to do more to combat terrorism?

Compare that to the number of people who resolve to diet or workout at the gym.

In 2005 the CSIRO's Total Wellbeing Diet book outsold Harry Potter in Australia. It has since sold 700,000 copies and a sequel has been released which seems to be selling equally well.

Books on "How to combat terrorism" don’t even exist.

When my children were growing up I worried much more about the possibility of road accidents than terrorist attacks and I was living in South Africa at the time!

I don’t want to downplay the dangers of terrorism. It is a serious, problem. We do need to be alert.

But in Australia I suggest it is a second order problem.

This news just in:

REPORT: WORLD AT RISK OF BIO, NUKE ATTACK

See:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LawPolitics/story?id=6375476&page=1

Quote:

"The biggest threat is a biological attack, which the report considers to be a greater possibility than a nuclear or radiological attack."

Here's the thing. Producing a nuke requires billions unless you can get your hands on fissile materials. Then the cost falls to hundreds of millions.

However the cost of producing bio-weapons has fallen to tens of millions AT MOST. This is well within the reach of a well funded terrorist organisation.

As the report points out:

"...The globalization of biotechnology industries is spreading expertise and capabilities, and increasing the accessibility of biological pathogens suitable for disruptive attacks..."

The capabilities are out there. The number of people with the requisite know-how is growing. As with computers, the costs are falling.