Ethics of Biological Warfare Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Ethics of Biological Warfare - Essay Example Contemporary wars are characterized by the use of biochemical and nuclear weapons rather than manual force. Thus, contemporary wars have erupted on all levels ranging from domestic to international. The increase of knowledge in such fields as nuclear physics, chemistry, biology and radiology has generated a fear among the scientists about the potential of the modified pathogens to comprise overwhelming agents for the warfare. This paper briefly discusses the history of warfare and the ethics of science’s role in the advancement of modern warfare in general and the chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) warfare in particular. The evolution of all sorts of weaponry can fundamentally be attributed to the dual-use dilemma. Researchers may not be intending to develop something potentially harmful, yet they assume great tendency to do so while experimenting with noble intentions. A research done in 2001 demonstrates the dual-use dilemma. In this research, the researc hers’ efforts were directed at creating a contraceptive vaccine for the pest control, but on their way, researchers ended up developing a bioweapon. Australian researchers hypothesized that introducing a gene that creates large amounts of interleukin-4 (IL-4) into mice would stimulate antibodies against mouse eggs and render the animals infertile†¦The scientists chose a benign mousepox virus†¦[that] killed all of the mice in the study. IL-4 suppressed the immune system, making it unable to fight the mousepox virus. With no defensive launched by the immune system the virus was 100 percent lethal. The virus was significantly lethal even in mice vaccinated against this particular strain of mousepox. (Nowak cited in Reyes). The same technique can be used for the humans since the human smallpox is equivalent to the virus of the mousepox. Before getting their research report published, the Australian researchers seeked guidance from Australia’s Department of Defenc e regarding their proceedings. Jackson, one of the researchers said, â€Å"We wanted to warn the general population that this potentially dangerous technology is available. We wanted to make it clear to the scientific community that they should be careful, that it is not too difficult to create severe organisms† (Jackson cited in Nowak). This also speaks of the fact that many techniques have been brought to the attention of the concerned parties by the scientists with the positive intention of warning them against such experiments. It is hard to justify the development of nuclear weaponry by any standard of ethics until one country developed it for the first time. In the current circumstances, its development is inevitable given some countries that possess nuclear weapons can not be allowed to rule the world just because other countries don’t have them. Countries need nuclear weapons not because they want to attack others, but because they need to be sufficient in thei r self-defense. A nuclear war does not make anyone succeed as long as both the countries are in possession of the nuclear weapons. Even if not suddenly, many abnormalities show up eventually. Citizens of Heroshema and Nagasaki have retained the effects of nuclear war in their genes and many have thus lost the tendency to give birth to normal children. International treaties to outlaw the biological weapons have surfaced from time to time first in 1925 and then

Marks and Spencer and John Lewis Pension Schemes Case Study

Marks and Spencer and John Lewis Pension Schemes - Case Study Example Until now workers of M&S did not have to make any contribution towards their own pension from their salary and they were entitled to a small part of their final salary as retirement income. Thus compared with John Lewis pension scheme in which workers do not have to make contributions towards the final salary scheme and retirement income from their existing salaries, Marks & Spencer pension scheme has changed so that workers will have to make a final contribution towards their final salary scheme or they may receive lowered benefits later. There are conflicts of interest between employees and trustees in both John Lewis and Marks and Spencer. However John Lewis is a partnership business which means it is largely controlled by employees. The employee trusts adequately maintain the benefits of employee ownership structures and in case of John Lewis there is breakdown of the strict dichotomy between employees and trustees with employees having direct ownership to an extent. However in case of Marks& Spencer, the trustees are responsible for funding and the pension scheme and the employee trustee distinction is quite obvious with both potential and real conflicts within Marks and Spencer. The John Lewis Partnership had still... 3. Defined Benefit/Defined Contribution. Which type of provision suits each organization and why The John Lewis Partnership had still recently reduced the benefits of its pension scheme to cut the costs of its operations and maintenance. However in the last year, with profits up to 27% increase, 85m has been marked out for pension based funds which would be nearly 10% of the company's budget (John Lewis, 2007). The pension costs being very high for the company when compared with other companies, the cutting down of pension costs provide reasonable savings for the company. Recent changes in the M&S salary schemes mean that pension contribution will have to accrue benefits at a slower rate or there has to be limits on the rate at which pensionable salaries rise. Contribution and benefits are tied in case of M&S salary and pension scheme as members contribute to their own salary and benefits by using some for later retirement income. In case of John Lewis benefit schemes, employee contributions are not direct and usually employees are subject to these schemes for their benefit on r etirement. 4. John Lewis Partnership is not a quoted company. How does that affect its pension policy (if at all) Is it a "better or worse" situation in this regard than Marks and Spencer John Lewis being not a quoted company but rather run by the concept of partnership showing that employees claim direct ownership to the business (John Lewis, 2007). Recently John Lewis has also launched a unique share incentive plan and it remains as primarily an employee owned company and this affects its pension policy that focuses on a large share of costs on the