September 25, 2013 – I am heartbroken by the senseless terrorist attack in Kenya and the loss of lives and horrific injuries to so many innocent people. In the eyes of God, every life is sacred and every person has dignity. The taking of a single human life is an attack on all humankind.

I deplore these revolting acts of terrorism, which serve no purpose but to bring about destruction, sorrow and grief. I reiterate my condemnation of all forms of terror regardless of its perpetrators and their stated purposes. The criminals must be brought to justice even though that will do little to mitigate the cruelty inflicted on victims and their families.

I extend my heartfelt prayers to the injured, the families of the deceased and all of the people of Kenya. I ask God the Merciful to guide us all expediently into a world of mutual respect and peace. (read full statement: http://www.afsv.org/press-releases/)

Southern Pine Beetles (Dendroctonus frontalis, figure 1) are one of the most harmful pests in the world, causing hundreds of million dollars worth of damage to pine trees in the Southern United States. These beetles initiate their attack on a pine tree by having a small group of female beetles dig into the inner park (Figure 2) and phloem of the pine tree. Once this work is done these females will secrete a chemical that will draw other male and female beetles to the affected pine tree. This initial attack is followed by a massive attack by a larger number of beetles, enabling them to easily overcome the defenses of the pine trees due to the sheer number of beetles. Shortly after taking over the tree, mating begins between the male and female beetles. As part of the mating process the females fill the excavated galleries within the trees with eggs. After the eggs have been laid the adult beetles will then leave the tree and continue to attack other trees. Attacking trees and causing their death is of course a sad story and may not sound very interesting since most pests have similar attack strategies; however, one detail that we did not mention yet makes this process more intriguing. What do the larvae eat to complete their development within a gallery that is inside a dead tree? The answer is: Fungi.

Pine beetles establish a symbiotic life structure with a beneficial fungus (Entomocorticium sp. A), which is the main food source for their larvae. Adult pine beetles have a body compartment (mycangium), in which they can carry this fungus. When adult beetles dig galleries in tree barks, they inoculate these galleries with the fungi. This fungus will grow in these galleries that helps the beetles’ larvae complete their development by providing them with a source of nutrition. Fungi also benefit from this process by being transferred from one tree to another with the help of the beetles. This symbiotic life structure is threatened by the existence of an antagonistic fungus, (Ophiostoma minus, also known as blue stain fungus) and parasitic mites both of which the southern pine beetles also bring along. The blue stain fungus has no nutritional importance for larvae, this fungus can grow in the same galleries as the beneficial fungus and they can even outcompete them. In addition, the parasitic mites feed on the blue fungi and can prove harmful beetles as the amount of blue fungi increases. Therefore, beetles’ larvae cannot survive for long and thus the reproduction of the southern pine beetles can be disrupted without some form of defense.

A recent study by Scott et al. has shed some light on this complicated life structure [3]. These tiny beetles, which are only a few millimeters long, have a smart defense mechanism to prevent their larvae (Figure 3, pink arrow). As far as the history tells us, humankind started using pesticides about 5000 years ago, but these tiny beetles have been using them for preventing the growth of the blue-stain fungi long before humans started using pesticides. These studies showed that the symbiotic coexistence of southern pine beetles and the beneficial fungi (Figure 3, yellow circle) is maintained by a (actinomycetous) bacterium (Figure 3, inside the red square). This bacterium produces a previously unknown antibiotic compound (named mycangimycin), which selectively inhibits the growth of blue-stain fungus hence providing a significant advantage for the maintenance of the beneficial fungi (that is, the main food source of the larvae). How can this bacterium even be present in the freshly carved galleries in pine trees in the first place? The surprising answer to this question is that they are transferred to these galleries by the very same pine beetles. As mentioned earlier, adult pine beetles carry beneficial fungi in their body compartment (mycangium) and inoculate the galleries they carved with this fungus to provide food for their larvae. In addition to this beneficial fungi these beetles carry they also carry bacteria that can produce antibiotic compound to inhibit the growth of blue-stain fungi and consequently diminish the number of parasitic mites. This bacterium can grow inside these galleries and even in a body compartment of adult southern pine beetles. Interestingly, this antibiotic kills blue-stain fungi but does not significantly affect the growth of the fungi, which is the food source for larvae. Thus, the beneficial fungi can multiply in number and offer enough food for the development of beetle larvae. Some of these larvae manage to grow to adults and then leave to attack other pine trees carrying the same fungi and bacteria with them (Figure 4).

The interactions within the rest of the life kingdoms is not any less complicated than the symbiosis between pine beetles, fungi, and the bacteria. The interactions between animals, plants and microbes are very complex and also fragile. Removing or replacing any member of an ecosystem can often result in a serious failure in the ecosystem as was observed many times especially within the last century.

References

1. http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=112319&preview=false.
2. http://entnem.ufl.edu/creatures/trees/southern_pine_beetle.htm.
3. Scott, J.J., et al., “Bacterial protection of beetle-fungus mutualism.” Science, 2008. 322 (5898): p. 63.

•conquered and occupied two large Muslim countries (Afghanistan and Iraq)

•compelled a huge Muslim army to root out a terrorist sanctuary (Pakistan)

•deployed thousands of special forces to numerous Muslim countries (Yemen, Somalia, Sudan etc.)

•imprisoned hundreds of Muslims without recourse

•waged a massive war of ideas involving Muslim clerics to denounce violence and new institutions to bring Western norms to Muslim countries

•killed Osama bin Laden, the inspirational leader of Al Qaeda who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Have these actions – which some have called, “World War IV” – made America safe?

In a narrow sense, America is safer and justice has been served. There has not been another attack on the scale of 9/11. Our defenses regarding immigration controls, airport security, and the disruption of potentially devastating domestic plots have all improved. This is the positive side of the ledger.

In a broader sense, however, America is not safe enough. Anti-American suicide terrorism rose rapidly around the world in the decade since September 11, 2001. In 2003, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld famously asked, “Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrasas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?” As even a casual glance at the facts shows, the answer is a disappointing no. The negative side of the balance sheet is daunting.

September 11, 2001 was so devastating largely because it was a suicide attack in which 19 hijackers killed themselves in the course of killing 3,000 innocent people. So the key to tracking the threat is to focus on suicide terrorism, especially those inspired against Americans.

Look at the numbers. In 2000 – the year before 9/11 – there were 20 suicide attacks around the world and one – against the US Cole in Yemen – was anti-American inspired. By contrast, in 2010, there were well over 200 suicide attacks and about 90 percent were anti-American inspired – against US troops or those working with America – a ten-fold increase over the past decade.

Each month, there are more suicide terrorists trying to kill Americans and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other Muslim countries than in all the years before 2001 combined. Yes, these attacks are mostly (although not exclusively) focused on military and diplomatic targets. However, so too were the anti-American suicide attacks before 2001. It is important to remember that the 1995 and 1996 bombings of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and (as mentioned) bombing of the US Cole in Yemen in 2000 were the crucial dots that showed the threat was rising prior to 9/11. Today, such dots are occurring by the dozens every month.

American military policies have not stopped the rising wave of extremism in the Muslim world. The reason has not been lack of effort, lack of will among the American people, lack of bipartisan support for aggressive military policies, lack of funding, or lack of genuine patriotism.

No. American military policies are not failing for the standard excuses. Something else is creating the mismatch between America’s effort and the results.

What went wrong

America has been waging a long war against terrorism, but without much serious public debate about what is truly motivating terrorists to kill us. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, this was perfectly understandable. If toppling the Taliban was necessary to take out Al Qaeda’s sanctuary in Afghanistan, so be it.

But, in an instant, there was also a great need to know, or perhaps better to say, to “understand” the events of that terrible day. A simple narrative was readily available and a powerful conventional wisdom began to exert its grip. Since the 9/11 hijackers were all Muslims, it was easy to presume that Islamic fundamentalism was the central motivating force driving the 19 hijackers to kill themselves in order to kill us. Within weeks after the attack, surveys of American attitudes show that this presumption was fast congealing into a hard reality in the public mind. Americans immediately wondered, “Why do they hate us?” and almost as immediately came to the conclusion that it was because of who we are, not what we do.

The narrative of Islamic fundamentalism did more than explain why America was attacked. It also pointed toward a simple, grand solution – one whose ambition only made it seem all the more worthy in light of the trauma of that terrible day. If Islamic fundamentalism was driving the threat and if its roots grew from the culture of the Arab world, then America had a clear mission: to transform Arab societies – with Western political institutions and social norms as the ultimate antidote to the virus of Islamic extremism.

The only problem: Islamic fundamentalism is not the main driver of suicide terrorism. What drives this phenomenon more than any other single factor is foreign military presence – which inspires wave after wave of individuals to join terrorist groups in order to carry out suicide attacks in the hope that these would end the foreign presence in their lands.

On September 11, 2001, the United States had deployed over 12,000 combat forces to countries on the Persian Gulf (5,000 in Saudi Arabia and 7,000 in other countries along the rim). We now know that these troops were the principle rallying cry of Osama bin Laden in his efforts to mobilize volunteers for suicide attacks against the United States and that the martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers – their last video will testimonials – prominently justify their actions as in response to Western military control of the governments on the Arabian peninsula. Further, escalation of American combat forces in the region for the Iraq war directly fueled still further anti-American suicide terrorism.

Hence, the grand solution became the grand catalyst for more anti-American inspired suicide terrorism than ever before.

What we know

Vast new research on suicide terrorism has produced important new knowledge. Here is a summary of what we know:

•Occupation causes suicide terrorism

Over 95% of all suicide attacks are in response to foreign occupation

•The more occupation, the more suicide terrorism

As America has occupied two large Muslim countries, Afghanistan and Iraq with a total population of about 60 million, total suicide attacks worldwide have risen dramatically – from about 300 from 1980 to 2003 to 2000+ from 2004 to 2010. Further, 90% of all suicide attacks are now anti-American.

•Indirect occupation is the equivalent of direct occupation

The US compelled Pakistan to deploy 100,000 troops against the Taliban in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Pakistani suicide attacks escalated dramatically.

•Ending occupation can end suicide terrorism even without transforming Muslim countries

Since Israel withdrew its army from Lebanon in May 2000, there has not been a single Lebanese suicide attack. Since Israel withdrew from Gaza and large parts of the West Bank, Palestinian suicide attacks are down over 90%. Since America and its allies began withdrawing from Iraq, suicide attacks are also falling fast.

•Empowering local groups can reduce suicide terrorism

In Iraq, the surge’s apparent success was not the result of increased US military control of Anbar Province, but rather quite the reverse – the empowerment of Sunni tribal leaders for their own security, commonly called the Anbar Awakening.

•Taking power away from local groups can escalate suicide terrorism

In Afghanistan the ISAF’s expansion strategy, designed to exert more central government control over the Pashtun tribes in the Western and Southern provinces, caused a resurgence in the Taliban and an increase in the number of suicide attacks.

The tide is turning

The oxygen for America’s strategy is, fundamentally, how we understand the root cause of the terrorist threat we face. In recent years, the intellectual climate has begun to change. In January 2010, a Zogby poll found that 27% of Americans now believe that the “most important factor” motivating terrorists to attack the United States is that they “resent Western power and influence” compared to 33% who still think the main motive is “make Islam the world’s dominant religion.”

American military policies are also changing. The United States started to draw down military forces from Iraq in 2008, has already removed 100,000 troops, and is on schedule to end its commitment of heavy combat forces there next year. Since their peak in 2007, suicide attacks in the country have fallen by over 80 percent and the country is more stable today than at any point since America conquered the country in 2003.

In Afghanistan, President Obama announced in July his plan to remove about a third of US forces from the country over the next year and to continue drawing down thereafter. If so, there is good reason to expect that suicide attacks will soon begin to decline significantly there as well.

Fortunately the US does not need to station large ground forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan to keep them from being a significant safe haven for Al Qaeda or any other anti-American terrorists. This can be achieved by a strategy called “Off-Shore Balancing” that relies on over-the-horizon air and naval forces and rapidly deployable ground forces, combined with empowering local groups to oppose the terrorist groups. No matter what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US will maintain a significant air and naval presence in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean for many years, and those forces are well-suited to striking terrorist leaders and camps in conjunction with local militias – just as they did so successfully against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in 2001.

Above all, to truly move beyond the war on terror, it is important for scholars, policy intellectuals, government leaders, and the public at large to continue to educate themselves about the factors that lead to suicide attacks like 9/11. The more we know, the fewer mistakes and the better our policies – and the more we can all live our lives in peace.

Robert A. Pape is Professor and Director of the University of Chicago Project on Security and Terrorism and author of Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It (2010).

At the beginning, I really did not pay much attention to him. He was very small, almost invisible and harmless-looking. However, he started to reproduce all of a sudden. Now, there were billions of his copies on one of my leaves. Everything was happening so quickly. They were taking me over. Something had to be done urgently.

As plants, we cope with such environmental stresses everyday. If the stress factors affecting us are living organisms, such as bacteria, harmful insects, and weeds, we call those as biotic stresses (1). On the other hand, if we are exposed to drought, salinity, heat, cold, and deficiency or excess of a chemical in soil, those are abiotic stresses for us. Both biotic and abiotic stresses impair our growth and even lead to our death sometimes. Therefore, stress response mechanisms are very important for us. Unfortunately in the United States alone, crop losses due to plant pathogens amount to billions of dollars (2). As we are the main food resource for the humans and assigned for so many other important functions on earth by God, our health and productivity is taken very seriously by scientists. So, it is of great interest to them to find out how our defense responses against microbes work. If scientists learn what is going on when a plant is infected by pathogens thoroughly, they can introduce better resistance mechanisms into economically important crop plants via genetic engineering.

Oh “NO,” I am stressed!

Unlike animals, we are firmly attached to the ground so we can not escape from stress factors. However, thanks to God, we have fascinating defense mechanisms against environmental challenges. First of all, I need to know who this infectious agent (pathogen) is so that I can trigger a stress response mechanism against it. The interactions between me and these microbes are controlled by my receptor proteins and Pathogen-associated molecular patterns, or PAMPs, delivered by the pathogen. PAMPs help pathogen growth by suppressing my defenses and manipulating my metabolism (3).When I recognize a PAMP by my receptors, I activate a set of defense mechanisms known as the hypersensitive response (HR) to arrest and terminate pathogen growth before it terminates me (4). Just before or in conjunction with HR, I increase synthesis of several families of pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins in my infected part (5).

Do you want to know what I do after I identify a pathogen? I bet you do, so I am going to tell you about the other components of my signal transduction cascade that is activated upon brutal attack of microbes (Fig. 1). One of the early steps in this signaling cascade is the elevation of cellular calcium (Ca (2+)) levels mediated by my plasma membrane and channels such as cyclic nucleotide gated channels (CNGCs). After the initial Ca(2+) increase, I activate some of my calcium-binding proteins (calmodulin or CaM) and protein kinases, which modify other proteins by chemically adding phosphate groups to them, and ultimately I generate nitric oxide (NO) and reactive oxygen species (ROS) (6). ROS function as signaling molecules that coordinate a wide range of diverse plant processes, such as growth, development, stress adaptation, and cell self-destruction (programmed cell death) (7). However, the real reason I produce ROS under attack is to use them as local toxins to form unfavorable conditions for pathogen growth and reproduction. NO plays a key role in our immunity in synergy with ROS regulating responses that include defense gene expression and programmed cell death (8). As a result, I utilize both ROS and NO to say “NO” to the pathogens. Other important signaling molecules I utilize are salicylic acid and jasmonic acid. These essential plant hormones are chemical messengers that enable me to respond to my environment. Salicylic acid, SA, which is chemically similar to but not identical to the active component of aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), is involved in the defense against pathogens that feed and reproduce on live host cells and activates signaling processes providing systemic acquired resistance, protecting the plant from further infection after an initial pathogen attack (9) (Fig. 2). On the other hand, jasmonic acid (JA) induces defense against pathogens that kill host cells for nutrition and reproduction (10). Another hormone in the complex cross talk of signaling pathways regulating my defense responses to microbial attack is ethylene, ET (11).

Although, I have not even told you all the details, I bet you have started to think that all these signaling cascades, regulators, hormones, molecular patterns, and receptors are highly complicated. Do not worry; I am not planning to tell you all the molecular mechanism(s) and relevant pathways I execute during biotic stress responses. If I do, then what will the plant scientists who are interested in plant pathogen interactions do for the rest of their lives? Instead I am going to briefly describe to you what strategies I use to prevent the spread of infection that the small microbe started.

Initially, I build physical barriers around the infection by increasing my cuticle, a protective waxy covering, and cell wall thickness, and then I release antimicrobial compounds, such as phenolics and phytoalexins to the sites of invasion (11). However, this effort is usually not enough to stop the microbes. Therefore, most of the time, the cells in the local region surrounding the infection decide to commit suicide to limit the growth of the pathogen through programmed cell death, which is a highly coordinated and sophisticated phenomenon. This resembles to the firefighters’ strategy to put down a forest fire. Firefighters control flames by cutting down trees, clearing brush away from the existing edge of the fire. This way they can form borders to mitigate the forest fire.

While I am fighting the infection, I also try to confer a long-lasting protection against this pathogen. I send mobile signals like salicylic acid to activate defense responses in distal tissues in case a secondary pathogen attack might occur there (12). Salicylic acid also induces numerous genes that encode PR proteins with antimicrobial properties (13).

I have done all those things I have told you here and a lot more that are still undisclosed to humans in a really short time because it was a matter of “to be, or not to be.” After all that stress, I have won the battle against the microbe at least for now. I have gained a life experience and will defend myself better in the future. I am recovering, but unfortunately my leaf, where all that fighting happened, has a big lesion, an abnormal tissue, which was formed when my poor cells died during the attack (Figure3).

As you can tell from my story, plants get stressed out too. However, we are not stressed due to problems at home, school, or work or spending time stuck in traffic. We deal with salinity, heavy metals, temperature, drought, lack of nutrition, herbivores (insects, mammals, etc.), and pathogens. Thanks to God that He gave us astonishingly complicated response mechanisms to resist all sorts of stresses to some extent, especially biotic stress. Otherwise, we might have become extinct. Can you imagine a world without us? You would have no more oxygen in the air, no more food for animals and humans, no more papers or books, no more clothes, no more furniture, no more blooming beautiful gardens, no more roses for your loved ones, and no more trees, which hold the soil in place so that wind and rain don’t cause severe erosion and destruction of homes for so many species. In addition, there will be fewer resources for drugs and dyes. Oh my God, you are the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful. Thank you that You created us, shaped us and gave us smell, taste, color, and resistance to stresses.

Safiye Arslan is a research fellow in the area of biological chemistry and lives in Nevada.

References

1. Holopainen JK, Gershenzon J. 2010. “Multiple stress factors and the emission of plant VOCs.” Trends Plant Sci. 15,176–184.

2. http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/biotechnology/

3. Wulff BB, Chakrabarti A, Jones DA. 2009. “Recognitional specificity and evolution in the tomato-Cladosporium fulvum pathosystem.” Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 22, 1191–202.

4. Genger RK, Jurkowski GI, McDowell JM, Lu H, Jung HW, Greenberg JT, Bent AF. 2008. “Signaling pathways that regulate the enhanced disease resistance of Arabidopsis ‘defense, no death’ mutants.” Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 21, 1285–96.

5. Klessig DF, Durner J, Noad R, Navarre DA, Wendehenne D, Kumar D, Zhou JM, Shah J, Zhang S, Kachroo P, Trifa Y, Pontier D, Lam E, Silva H. 2000. “Nitric oxide and salicylic acid signaling in plant defense.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 97, 8849–8855.

6. Ma W, Berkowitz GA. 2007. “The grateful dead: calcium and cell death in plant innate immunity.” Cell Microbiol. 9, 2571–85.

7. Gechev TS, Van Breusegem F, Stone JM, Denev I, Laloi C. 2006. “Reactive oxygen species as signals that modulate plant stress responses and programmed cell death.” Bioessays. 28, 1091–101.

8. Asai S, Yoshioka H. 2009. “Nitric oxide as a partner of reactive oxygen species participates in disease resistance to nectrotophic pathogen Botryis cinerea in Nicotiana benthamiana.” Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 22, 619–29.

9. Beckers GJ, Spoel SH. 2006. “Fine-Tuning Plant Defence Signalling: Salicylate versus Jasmonate.” Plant Biol (Stuttg). 8, 1–10.

10. Spoel SH, Johnson JS, Dong X. 2007. “Regulation of tradeoffs between plant defenses against pathogens with different lifestyles.” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104, 18842–7.

11. Bouchez O, Huard C, Lorrain S, Roby D, Balagué C. 2007. “Ethylene is one of the key elements for cell death and defense response control in the Arabidopsis lesion mimic mutant vad1.” Plant Physiol. 145, 465–77.

12. Ficke A, Gadoury DM, Seem RC, Godfrey D, Dry IB. 2004. “Host Barriers and Responses to Uncinula necator in Developing Grape Berries.” Phytopathology. 94, 438–45.

13. Liu PP, Bhattacharjee S, Klessig DF, Moffett P. 2010. “Systemic acquired resistance is induced by R gene-mediated responses independent of cell death.” Mol Plant Pathol. 11, 155–60.

14. Durrant WE, Dong X. 2004. “Systemic acquired resistance.” Annu Rev Phytopathol. 42, 185–209.

I, the protective system that you call the “immune system,” am divided into different groups and sections, each of which has its own area of expertise. Just like a military unit, each of my groups has to be partially or fully trained before it begins life in my system so that it can properly fulfill its defensive function. “Soldiers” in this protective troop work according to what expertise they have and the type of “enemy” (alien microorganisms) they encounter. Some are equipped with heavy weapons against tough enemies; some produce a special poison with which they kill their enemies by injecting it into their bodies, some work like a waste disposal, smashing up the dead bodies of the enemies, and some of them eat the alien intruders alive when they attack your body. Others produce raw material to arm your body, some turn that material into weapons, some work as defenders, some are signalers, some are rangers and some are equipped with a special intelligence which allows them to recognize the previous invaders and destroy them more easily at their future encounter. In this intelligence system, which works like an information center, the soldiers check the dangerous invaders and remember their previous experience with them. Then, they develop a strategy to fight against those invaders. If the enemy is known well, the defense against it will be easier.

Now, using this analogy, I will talk about your enemies and the features of my soldiers that are placed in your body to fight against them. However, I have to remind you of something first: as you know, every army has to have a top commander. Similarly, there is someone who has placed such a perfect system like me in your body, someone who has boundless knowledge and power, and has no one else superior to Him or has no one to receive orders and instructions. That is our Lord God Almighty. Since He knows very well what kinds of enemies you will face, He has created me with all my troops so that you can be defended against those enemies.

The enemies of your body are germs, which enter your body through different passage ways, including digestion, respiration, excretion and the skin. “Germ” is a general term referring to many kinds of micro-organisms. Some of them are bacteria, some are fungi and some are viruses. Your body needs different special tactics to defend against each group of germs and my soldiers are quite talented in those tactics. I have to be always watchful against germs coming from outside. Not only that, but I also have to be careful about inner enemies, that is, the cells in your body which suddenly turn into “terrorists” becoming harmful and spoiling the system. You call those cells “cancerous.” It is a great challenge for me to cope with those cells because they originate from among your very own cells and they know our tactics very well. Nevertheless, with God’s help, we can defeat them. However, when too much stress and anxiety weaken me I might miss some of those cancerous cells, which will grow and become tumors. In fact, cancerous cells develop much more in number than is commonly known. But my soldiers constantly check every single cell that is formed in your body and try to see whether it is normal or not. As soon as they discover a cancerous “terrorist” cell, they try to quickly destroy it. However, some cancerous cells are disguised like a wolf wearing a sheepskin so that they can avoid detection. My soldiers make rounds and check the cells from outside by only looking at their skin. Thus, they can be manipulated. All of your cells, including those with germs or cancer, contain protein with a special code which identifies the cells as being yours. When my soldiers encounter our fellow cells carrying those coded proteins, they release them. But the enemies who do not carry this code (or password) are immediately caught and destroyed. When we have diseases like cancer, however, the cancerous cells may evade our “rounds man” because they know this password. Sometimes the opposite may happen: my soldiers get confused and cannot identify their fellow cells despite carrying the right password, assume that they are enemies and start to attack them. These types of diseases, called Autoimmune diseases, emerge with a quite complicated mechanism which is a puzzle even for me! For example, during rheumatoid arthritis, which is among the many long-lasting and unrecoverable diseases, my soldiers attack and gradually destroy the tissues like cartilage, cardiac muscle, eye lenses, and the tubes of the kidneys with which they share a body. In fact, when we are created as a whole system (when you are only an embryo in your mother’s womb), some of my soldiers make an agreement with the other cells of your body, announcing that they will forever stay friends with them, will show tolerance to them and will only attack the enemies. But, somehow this agreement is broken later; my soldiers do not obey me anymore.

Now it is time for my group of soldiers to introduce themselves:

The most general term by which we are identified with is white blood cells or leukocyte. We appear approximately 6,000 to 7,000 times in each cubic millimeter of human blood. The other blood cells, which are called red blood cells (erythrocyte) are red in color; it is for this reason that we are called white. Since blood vessels can reach to the remotest edges of the body, we roam around the body through those vessels and look for work to do. Of course, not everyone can do everything. So, we are first divided into two sections. The cells in the first section contain microscopic granules, so they are called granular leukocyte. The cells in the second section do not contain such granules, so they are called agranular leukocyte. Those sections are divided into groups among themselves. The first section has three groups: neutrophils, eosinophils and basophils. The second section has two groups named monocyte and lymphocyte.

Eosinophills: You may not know much about these soldiers that make up 12% of the whole protective body. However, during allergic reactions and diseases caused by parasites, the number of these soldiers increases. They complete the effect of the antibodies produced against the antigens. Some chemical substances like histamine appear as a reaction to antigens, such as itchiness, rash, and swelling. Eosinophils reduce the effects of those substances and the symptoms.

Basophils, which are the least in number, make up the 0.5% of the body. Those soldiers are present mostly in the scars that are healing or in highly infected areas. The granules inside basophils contain two very important substances called heparin and histamine. Histamine helps expand the blood vessels and accelerates the release of active substances within me from the blood vessel walls, enabling them to reach to the affected area. Heparin also prevents the blockage of blood vessels because of blood clot.

Lymphocytes of the second section are the group of soldiers which goes through special training and has expertise in many subjects. They make up 20-25% of the soldiers in my system. Those soldiers detect antigens and germs and remove them from the body. Every soldier has a detector which identifies a certain antigen. Therefore, in your blood, there are millions of lymphocyte soldiers, which are different from each other and do not have a pair. For any antigen of a germ, you will definitely find a lymphocyte that finds and kills it. Those soldiers can be grouped according to their appearances, as small, medium, and large lymphocytes. Each group has different special features. We can also divide them according to their maturation and training process as B-lymphocytes and T-lymphocytes. Although both of them originate from stem cells in the bone marrow, T-lymphocytes mature in the thymus before they move to the other lymph tissues such as the spleen, liver, and tonsils (Thymus is a gland in the chest that talked about itself in the previous issue). B-lymphocytes, however, mature in the bone marrow, and go directly to the tonsils, appendicitis, spleen and other lymph tissues. When the T lymphocytes mature in the bone marrow, they acquire different new features. Some of them work as T helper cell, some work as natural killer T-cells and some work as suppressor T-cell. A helper T-cell, which is triggered by an antigen that is specific to it, secretes lymphokines, which makes B-cells produce antibodies. Among those lymphokines, interleukin-2 activates the natural killer T-cells, which kill the infected cells. The killer T-cells do not bind directly to an antigen. Rather, they secrete a substance that kills the infected cell after joining with the antibodies that were previously bound to the infected cells. On average, T-cells live 2-4 years; some, however, live more than 10 years. Today, the defense mechanism of the T-lymphocytes creates an issue in terms of organ transplantation. If, for some reason, a foreign organ (a kidney or heart, for example) is transplanted into the body, the T-lymphocytes attack that organ immediately. Those “headless” soldiers do not know that the body really needs that organ and try to eliminate it, therefore, leading to transplant rejection or tissue incompatibility. The T-lymphocytes treat the foreign organ the same way as they do to the cancerous cells: they attack and try to destroy it. For this reason, the immunologists are trying to discover medicines that will help them control the soldier T-lymphocytes whenever they need to be stopped.

Dear Peter, have you ever thought about how all this happens? While you have no idea about a germ that might enter your body, those memory cells, which are placed in your blood with a boundless compassion by our Creator, remember an enemy that they saw years ago, and begin to make weapons right away. Since those cells are devoid of reason and consciousness, to operate them there has to be Someone with a great knowledge and will.

The lymph nodes are production centers for the lymphocytes found at some particular places in the body. They resemble variously sized military headquarters. The lymphocytes are produced mostly at infection sites, which are the little lymph tissue groups located under the epithelium that lines along the walls of the digestive tube, respiratory track, and the bladder. When fighting with bacterial infections the lymph nodes swell and enlarge as much as 1–2 cm. In addition to the lymph nodes that extend through the lymph vessels, the areas such as nape, groin and the axilla (underarm) also contain lymph nodes. If you get an upper respiratory tract infection, the lymph nodes at your tonsils and neck areas become swollen. If you get a urinary track infection the nodes in your groin area become swollen. As for digestive track infections, it is the responsibility of the lymphocytes in your appendix to fight against germs. Some scientists view this organ, which is an extension of the cecum (the blind gut), as a “dead” piece of intestine. Both the appendix and tonsils are quite useful organs that produce lymphocytes in normal circumstances; they are not some useless remnants. For that reason, it is not right to remove them when it is not really necessary. However, we have to remember the proverb that says, “We salt the food so that it does not smell bad; but, what do we do if the salt itself smells bad? Then, we have to get rid of the salt.” Similarly, in some bodies where my system is weak and so is lymphocyte production, those areas become home to germs and you have to remove them.

Other than the soldiers of the immune system, several organs in your body have their own ways of protecting your body. Those organs do not have soldiers like in my system; theirs are like a “civil defense.” Chief among those are your skin which works as a natural barricade against the entrance of the germs, the mucous membrane that lines along the walls of your mouth and inner nose, interferon which is a substance produced by your cells against viruses, and an antibacterial substance called lysozyme which exists in your tears and sweat. Therefore, sweating, crying, and runny nose are not things to be ashamed of; they are only the protective systems that have been naturally placed in your body by our Lord God.

Dear Peter, I think I should stop here although there are still so many features of me that you have to discover. After all, beneath all diseases and deaths you will find disorders related to me. The biochemical processes in which many of my soldiers operate are not exactly known yet. If those are revealed, doctors will likely succeed in healing many other diseases. However, sooner or later you will reach the destined end: death. No creation can be immortal; there will definitely be a problem and you will have to leave this world, wherein you are only a guest. If you carefully contemplate the works of art in your body, in the hereafter you will have solved the riddle of the delicacies of those works. Of course, everyone’s time of death is unknown. Therefore, in this limited time, give your organs their due and give thanks to the God Almighty who gave you those gifts. Live according to His will, and always remember to glorify Him. Goodbye, Peter! May you and your troop be healthy!

Irfan Yilmaz is a professor of biology at Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey

Unpreparedness played an unquestionable role in this tragedy. Even if American officials had been sufficiently informed in advance about how the attacks would occur and that the targets were the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and other sites, they would never have given the slightest credit to the idea that œAmerican pilots would launch a kamikaze attack from the air. Nor would they have increased all security measures in the area.

Take any strong country, none of which has a direct enemy. One type of enemy probably is not happy with a strong countrys policies. Another enemy would be participating in a counter-activity with a regional motivation. A third enemy would wage a direct attack on the strong country so that it would be top-listed on the global agenda. In addition, it would seek an opportunity to express its criticism to the world. A fourth enemy would organize acts of terror throughout the world in order to realize its short- and long-term political and other goals.

Terrorists aim to scare people, to obstruct the governments authorized arms, and to challenge the federal government in the political and military arenas. However, these reasons are not enough to explain what we are facing today. The modern world confronts more than ordinary internationalterrorism, for the terror we see today is new and has large dimensions. Its operational and philosophical characteristics are now under investigation.

Recently, American society has observed murders committed by students at schools, collective suicides of families, kidnappings, Timothy McVeighs Oklahoma bombing, mail bombs, poisoned letters, and so on. In my opinion, such activities cannot be coincidental and are not very favorable developments in this great country.

This most cruel and violent terrorist activity seems to have been planned to the smallest detail. Also, its perpetrators benefited from the methods of previous attacks: the psychological training of kamikaze pilots, how to hijack airplanes and use them like rockets, obtaining information about the air defense system and target weaknesses, and how the attacks would be directed were all carefully analyzed.

It is impossible to understand this tragic attack completely without a clear assessment of its perpetrators goals. Perhaps the driving motivation could be an emotional factor of punishing America for one of its acts or for being what it is today. This basic assumption was surely a significant incentive.

The perpetrators obviously wanted to create a shocking psychological effect on governmental officials as well as on the entire society, to defeat the opponents active defense power, to display international terrorism as if equipped with vast facilities, and especially to ensure that the American government changes its current policies. Another option also could be a type of adventure-seeking insanity or just a furious mob, both of which have found no place for themselves in this world but nevertheless wanted to draw the worlds attention to themselves.

Russia is very well aware of the existence of some groups that claim to attack for the sake of Islam. However, I see that most Islamic societies do not agree with such self-proclaimed Muslim’s claims that they are representing them. These groups manipulate Islam either slightly or extensively in order to insert themselves within its perfect world, sometimes with various ethnic motivations. Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, is undoubtedly seeking support from Muslims and portraying himself to the world as a Muslim leader. But has any group ever acknowledged him as such a leader? In addition, I have not yet seen any clear evidence that men linked with Islam are behind the tragic events in New York and Washington.

This might be either a very well-planned campaign or an immediate reaction of the American media, which is very used to accusing all Muslims in the world. I do not perceive Islam as a religion of violence. Although we in Russia suffer in Chechnya and Moscow from bomb attacks, I do not think Islam is the underlying reason behind most of these terrorist activities. We have concrete evidence that bombings and other acts of violence have been committed by Chechens; however, I do not believe that Islam can be blamed for them.

The September 11th tragedy was an act of violence, a type with which we have been familiarized by American movies. It also can be argued that these movies involve scenes that inspire such attacks to be organized. Moreover, time and again America has produced protesting generations, especially at times of crisis like the wars in Korea and Vietnam. We might hear anti-war voices arising from among those Americans who will call attention to America’s responsibility and that this attack was a provocation.

If we can unite our power to this cause, we can move successfully against terrorism. It is also important to locate the only superpower at a more appropriate status, both for the good of itself and for humanity in general.

America is certainly a great nation, and it will overcome this crisis. However, I am concerned with the possibility that its leaders might make things even worse in the rest of the world.

Personally, I think that Americans do not understand and know too much about history. This might be because they are a young nation or because they consist of many different peoples. They do not have outstanding historians. However, the problems of Europe and Asia are always deeply rooted in the past. Unfortunately, I have not yet met any American who is well informed about the reasons of these events and from where they are arising. Americans react immediately, sometimes deprived of the consciousness that history is not only the past but also the future. We must teach history and learn from it.

Biological weapons (BWs), defined as infectious bacterial or viral agents used to harm others, have a long history2: Primitive peoples used arrows poisoned with biological toxins from animal and plant extracts, and also poisoned their enemy’s water supply with fecal extracts. Medieval warriors besieging the Russian city of Kaffa catapulted plague-infected corpses over its walls. Europeans knowingly gave smallpox- or measles-infected blankets to Native Americans, who had no resistance to these diseases. BWs reportedly were used during WWII. Over time, BWs have come to include biologically derived toxins and poisons.3 Among the most dangerous agents are smallpox, botalinum toxin (Btx), anthrax, and ricin.4 Some are highly lethal, while others incapacitate the host or primarily harm animals and plants. Today, many countries are believed to fund such research.

BWs Become a Modern Issue

Japan started the first offensive biological weapon program in 1918 with Unit 731, a special army unit dedicated to BWs production and experimentation. In 1931, it moved to Man-churia, China, where it conducted experiments on Chinese people and actually attacked several cities with different BWs until 1942. At least 10,000 Chinese died during those experiments. In 1942, the U.S. learned of this program and started its own. By 1969, it had weaponized the agents causing anthrax, botulism, tularemia, brucellosis, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, and Q fever.5

In 1969, President Nixon declared that the U.S. unilaterally renounced first use of lethal or incapacitating chemical agents and weapons, and unconditionally renounced all methods of biological warfare. Henceforth, the U.S.’s biological program would research only strictly defined measures of defense, such as immunization. All stockpiles were ordered to be destroyed. The U.S. and 165 other countries have signed the Biolog-ical and Toxic Weapons Convention (BWC), and 144 countries have ratified it.6

But the BWC cannot be effective if it cannot be enforced. For example, the USSR signed it but continued its programs. In 1979, at least 66 people died after an accidental anthrax release from a plant near Sverdlovsk. Soviet authorities denied any BWs production, but years later President Yeltsin confirmed that anthrax was being researched at that time.7 Yeltsin further asserted that all such programs were stopped and that stockpiles were being removed. However, evidence suggests that part of the offensive programs continue.8

The USSR’s demise (1991) led to the spread of BWs production information. According to Margolis, some of the 60,000 scientists and technicians formerly employed by its biological warfare establishment reportedly are working in Iraq, Israel, Iran, Syria, and Serbia, all of which already have extensive arsenals of biowarfare weapons. India also may have received substantial Russian aid.9

Iraq announced its BWs program in 1995. Fortunately, such agents were not used during the Gulf War, possibly due to fear of nuclear retaliation. The UN destroyed whatever it could find of Iraq’s BWs program in 1996.10 China, Iran, Taiwan, Syria, Cuba, North Korea, Egypt, Israel, and Libya are suspected of having similar programs.11

Why Would Anyone Use BWs?

In the eyes of nations or groups that put their own ideology or interests above all other considerations, including human life and future generations, such weapons might appear attractive. Consider the following points:

BWs probably are more effective on a per-quantity basis than more conventional weapons. Just 8 ounces of Type-A botalinum toxin, “the most lethal substance known,” could kill every living creature on Earth.12 One gram of anthrax contains 100 million lethal doses, and a few kilograms can kill as many people as died at Hiroshima.13 Generally speaking, several kilos of a biological agent can have the impact of several tons of nerve gas. BWs are extremely effective because they are highly toxic and are living organisms that multiply in and infect target hosts.

Producing chemical and nuclear weapons requires sophisticated equipment and highly trained personnel; BWs require only a modest level of education and investment. Kathleen C. Bailey, a former assistant director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, is “absolutely convinced” that a major biological arsenal could be built with $10,000 worth of equipment in a 15×15 ft. room.14

For example:

To infect 1 sq. km., it would cost approximately $2,000 using conventional weapons, $800 using nuclear weapons, $600 using chemical weapons, and $1 using biological weapons. Any nation with a reasonably advanced pharmaceutical and medical industry can mass produce BWs.15

Weaponized anthrax probably could be produced in a small house, apartment or RV for less than $100,000. The program could be run by perhaps less than a dozen technicians with the equivalent of a BS degree led by one supervisor with a Ph.D. The relevant basic knowledge for most biological weapons-grade microbes is freely available, and equipment and chemicals can be obtained from dozens of suppliers.16

A live weapon needs only a small sample for mass production. Some agents exist naturally in the soil or can be ordered from a biotech company. Various researchers have claimed that Saddam Hussein used the latter method to acquire his original anthrax culture.17 BWs are hard are to detect in the production phase, for most bioweapons can be produced in hidden and/or mobile conditions.18 When detected, the place can be quickly cleaned and transformed into an ordinary pharmaceutical research or biology lab. Furthermore, such anti-terrorist sensor systems as metal detectors, x-ray machines, trained dogs, or neutron bombardment cannot detect BWs.19

Damage is confined to people (and possibly other living things), thus leaving infrastructure intact20; the sheer terror caused by such a threat21; ensuing governmental panic22; and the time lag between release and detection makes identification and apprehension very remote.23 But BWs also have certain drawbacks, among them:

The need for effective delivery. Most biological agents infect through inhalation. Too-large particles are caught in the respiratory system; too-small particles are exhaled. To stay in the lungs, the particle should be between 1 and 5 Angstroms. In fact, a BW attempt in Japan failed because the dissemination tool was ineffective.24

Even if disseminated, the desired result is far from certain. Most biological materials, including spores, are destroyed by exposure to ultraviolet light and drying. Agents released in the air may disperse in unexpected ways due to changes in wind patterns. Rain may wash the agents out of the air before they reach their target. Also, BWs can turn around and infect those who released them.

BWs’ live nature is a two-edged sword. The disease spreads easily, but no one can know when it is safe to live in the infected area. An agent’s lifespan is a major concern, for it can become part of the local microflora and thus threaten any military follow-up activities for an unknown length of time.25

Vulnerability to Attack

BWs have two main uses: on the battlefield and on a civilian population. Battlefield Use: BWs have several drawbacks here, such as high dependence upon external conditions, delayed effects, possible self-infection, uncertainty over when an infected area is safe enough to return to, and neutralization by vaccination or protective clothing. Use on a Civilian Population: This is the true horror, for civilians would not be prepared for such an attack and the resulting epidemic would be very hard to control. If the attack is covert, authorities would be unable to identify the source and unaware of the attack until infected people start showing up in the hospitals. When they finally identified the agent, the infection would be widespread. If a vaccine did not exist, health professionals would be unable to offer much help. The U.S. considers itself very vulnerable to such an attack and is working to protect itself.

Given that BWs are not hard to obtain, why have they not been used on civilian populations so far? The main reasons seem to be fear of a reprisal attack and of alienating the public to one’s cause. Potential users apparently feel that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages. But as they may not always feel that way, the U.S. and other nations are studying how to prepare their national health care infrastructures and personnel to deal with such an event.

A Recent Development

On July 26, 2001, the Washington Post announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the BWC on the grounds that a newly proposed protocol “would not prevent cheating, and could encourage espionage against the U.S. pharmaceutical and chemical industries.” One wonders if other countries will follow suit.

Conclusion

Many Web sites discuss this vital issue, such as: www.brad.ac.uk/acad/sbtwc/: strengthening the BWC; www.cbiac.apgea.army.mil/about_us/general.html: Department of Defense focal point for data related to Chemical Warfare/Chemical and Biological Defense technology; www.asanltr.com/: specializes in nuclear, biological, and chemical defense and protection issues; www.geocities.com/nbclinks/: gateway for nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare data on the Web; and www.seanet.com/~gtate/cwoff.htm: gives access to various chemical warfare-related Web pages.

All religions condemn such horrific weapons on the grounds that all life is inherently sacred and worthy of respect. However, realpolitik, greed for profits, ideological conflict, and the need to assert or maintain control of natural and other resources deafens many governments and people to the appeals of religion.

Unfortunately, one nation’s and even one group’s decision to head down this path causes others to follow for the sake of self-preservation. We are well-advanced on this path, and no one can say where it will end

Footnotes

1. Rod Hafemeister, “Vaccines Will Not Suffice Fight Vs. Anthrax Needs Other Ammo,” Belleville News-Democrat (28 Dec. 1997). Online at: www.militaryreporter.org/anthrax.html.
2. R. E. Hurlbert, Microbiology 101, “Chapter XV, Adden-dum: Biological Weapons; Malignant Biology,” Washington State Univ. 1997). Online at: www.slic2.wsu.edu:82/hurlbert/micro101/pages/101biologicalweapons.html.
3. Henry E. Hardy, “Biological Weapons FAQ v. 0.44,” (1999): Online at: www.ocean.ic.net/ftp/doc/disaster/bio/biowfaq.html.
4. Partial online list: www.fas.org/nuke/intro/bw/agent.htm.
5. Thomas W. McGovern and George W. Christopher, Biological Warfare and Its Coetaneous Manifestations. Online at: www.telemedicine.org/BioWar/biologic.htm.
6. http://projects.sipri.se/cbw/docs/bw-btwc-mainpage.html.
7. F. A. Abramova et al., “Pathology of inhalational anthrax in 42 cases from the Sverdlovsk outbreak of 1979,” Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, no. 90 (1993): 2291-94; G. W. Christopher et al., “Biological Warfare: A Historical Perspective,” J Am Med Assoc, no. 278 (1997): 412-17.
8. Eric Margolis, “Another Doomsday Clock Is Ticking, Ticking,” Foreign Correspondent (20 June 1999). Online at: www.foreigncorrespondent.com/ archive/doomsday.htm.
9. R A. Zilinskas, “Iraq’s biological weapons: The past as future?” J Am Med Assoc, no. 278 (1997): 418-24.
10. Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Project Web Page: www.stimson.org/cwc/bwissues.htm.
11. Margolis, “Another Doomsday,”(20 June 1999).
12. Robert H. Kupperman and David M. Smith, “Coping with Biological Terrorism,” in Brad Roberts, ed., Biological Weapons: Weapons of the Future? (Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1993), 35-46; Wayman C. Mullins, “An Overview and Analysis of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Terrorism: The Weapons, Strategies and Solutions to a Growing Problem,” American Journal of Criminal Justice 16:2 (1992): 95-119.
13. M. Asperilla, “Bioterrorism: The threat of the future.” Online at: www.sun-herald.com/2000/fron9.htm.
14. L. Cole, “The Specter of Biological Weapons,” Scientific American. Online at: www.sciam.com/1296issue/ 1296cole.html#1.
15. Ibid.
16. R. E. Hurlbert, “Biological Weapons: Black Biology,” Focus on Microbiology Education Newsletter (Spring 1998). Online at: www.microbelibrary.org/newsletter/nltrs98.htm.
17. For this and other claims of how the U.S. helped Iraq obtain the necessary ingredients for both biological and chemical weapons, consult Mark Phythian and Nikos Passas, Arming Iraq: How the U.S. and Britain Secretly Built Saddam’s War Machine (Northeastern Univ. Press: 1996); Alan Friedman, Spider’s Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq (New York : Bantam Books, 1993).
18. Hurlbert, Microbiology 101 (see footnote 8).
19. Robert S. Root-Bernstein, “Infectious Terrorism,” Atlantic Monthly (May 1991): 44-50.
20. Stanley L. Wiener 1991. “Terrorist Use of Biological Weapons.” Terrorism 14:2, (1991): 129; “Chemical and Biological Weapons and Terrorism,” in Susan Flood, ed., International Terrorism: Policy Implications (Chicago: Office of International Criminal Justice, The University of Illinois at Chicago, 1991), 65.
21. Robert H. Kupperman and Darrell M. Trent, Terrorism: Threat, Reality, Response (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 1979).
22. Harvey J. McGeorge, “Reversing the Trend on Terror,” Defense & Foreign Affairs 16:4 (April 1988): 16-22.
23. Jeffrey D. Simon, Terrorists and the Potential Use of Biological Weapons: A Discussion of Possibilities R/3771-AFMIC (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp., 1989): 10; William E. Burrows and Robert Windrem, Critical Mass: The Dangerous Race for Superweapons in a Fragmenting World (New York: 1994), 483.
24. The ease of dissemination remains controversial. A detailed summary of the BWs delivery scenarios can be found in Ron Perver, Chemical and Biological Terrorism: The Threat According to the Open Literature. Online at: www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/eng/miscdocs/purv_e.html#tab2.
25. Dr. Dane Jones. Online at: www.calpoly.edu/~drjones/ biowar-e3.html.