8 Bioterrorism

Bioterrorism: What is it? Where has it been? Where is it going?

Disaster preparedness and response refers to the actions taken before, during, and after an emergency or catastrophic event. This is an all-encompassing term to include disasters of many categories. The acronym “CBRNE” divides disasters into a variety of categories. Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives are the respective categories in CBRNE. This section will discuss a type of biological threat that is a prominent issue in the modern world. Bioterrorism is defined by the Center for Disease Control as “Intentionally releasing viruses, bacteria, or toxins to harm people, livestock, or crops” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). This is a very broad definition to account for the many forms of bioterrorism that can exist. Bioterrorism is a complex and highly volatile issue that has a history of creating mass casualty and mass chaos. Bioterrorism is used for many different personal and political agendas. There are many different ways that bioterrorism shows up in society and warfare. In this section, there will be   exploration of prominent examples of bioterrorism, motives, results, and repairs being done following bioterrorist events. This section will explore the history of bioterrorism, levels of protections that are in place globally, nationally, and locally to prevent events of bioterrorism from occurring, and explore the future threats of bioterrorism.

History of Bioterrorism

Bioterrorism has been a humanitarian threat for centuries. With origins as early as 1400 BC, events of bioterrorism are not new. Bioterrorism historically is motivated by civil or political unrest and is used as a mechanism for mass destruction, chaos, and trauma. Bioterrorism is not specific to one population, group of people, or political climate. There are thousands of examples of bioterrorism being enacted all around the world. from using contaminated clothing to infecting local restaurant supplies to infecting another species with the intention of harming others, there are so many different ways bioterrorism is shown. In this section, there will be an exploration of prominent examples of bioterrorism over time and predictions for the future of bioterrorism as science, intelligence, and the world changes. Next are some notably alarming instances of bioterrorism in history.

The United States Civil War: Dr. Luke Blackburn’s Attempted Yellow Fever Attack

Dr. Luke Blackburn was an experienced medical doctor known for providing humanitarian aid to nations impacted by infectious disease outbreaks such as Yellow Fever. However, as civil unrest in the United States deepened, Blackburn turned his knowledge into a weapon. His plan involved acquiring clothing and bedding infected with Yellow Fever and selling them to Union soldiers in hopes of spreading the deadly disease.

Despite his intentions, Blackburn’s plan ultimately failed because Yellow Fever is not transmitted through direct contact with contaminated clothing or bedding. Instead, it is a vector borne illness and is spread through mosquito bites, a crucial factor he overlooked. While this particular act of bioterrorism was unsuccessful, it highlighted the potential use of biological agents in warfare and raised concerns about the deliberate spread of infectious diseases as a means of warfare.

One of the most concerning parts about this attempt of bioterrorism is the realization that any person with knowledge of hazardous substances or diseases has the potential to cause a real disaster. Dr. Luke Blackburn had origins and humanitarian work. But, his hatred for the Union soldiers took over his motivation. Dr Luke Blackburn’s goals of helping people turned into the very opposite; an unimaginable twist of human evil.

Despite this public knowledge of Dr Blackburn’s attempts to kill thousands of people, Dr. Blackburn was still later elected as governor of Kentucky. This is a statement of the level of political unrest in the United States at this time as to where such an attempt at terror is overlooked. A leader was elected despite his horrifying background of attempting to kill hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers (Carr).

Tony’s Lab: Dr. Anton Dilger’s Anthrax and Glanders Bioweapons

Dr. Anton Dilger was an American-German doctor recruited by the German government to serve as a secret agent during World War I. With his advanced knowledge of microbiology, Dilger was tasked with creating biological weapons designed to inflict mass casualties on the American population and military assets.

Dilger established a secret laboratory where he successfully cultivated and weaponized anthrax and glanders, two deadly bacterial agents. These biological agents were then used to infect livestock and agricultural resources, leading to the deaths of over 3,000 animals and people. His bioterrorist activities posed a significant threat to food supplies, military resources, and public health. The case of Dr. Dilger demonstrates the potential for biological agents to be used as weapons in warfare, as well as the devastating consequences of such actions (Wheelis)

Similarly to that of Dr. Blackburn, this example of bioterrorism demonstrates the range of danger and threat that bioterrorism presents to humankind. Dr. Anton Dilger, a man of incredible intelligence of science and biological practices, uses his intelligence to cause extreme harm. Dr. Dilger worked with both the United States and the Germans but ultimately sided with the Germans. Causing extreme chaos and death, Dr.  Dilger is yet another example of how the evil of humankind can utilize bioterrorism to reach their political and personal agendas.

Japan’s Plague-Infested Fleas: The 150,000,000-Flea Infestation on China

During World War II, Japan engaged in a large-scale bioterrorist attack against China. A covert biological and chemical warfare research division. Japanese forces developed and released plague-infected fleas into Chinese cities, particularly in regions such as Ningbo and Changde, as part of a calculated effort to spread disease among civilians and enemy forces.

The attack involved dropping approximately 150,000,000 fleas infected with the bubonic plague from aircraft over Chinese towns. The resulting outbreak led to widespread illness, suffering, and death. The introduction of this laboratory-specific strain of the plague not only devastated the human population but also had long-term ecological effects by introducing a new invasive species to the environment. The use of biological warfare in this case stands as one of the most egregious examples of state-sponsored bioterrorism in modern history.

The bioterrorist attack made clear the possibilities of how harmful these attacks can be. Not only did this strain of the Bubonic plague that was crafted specifically for this event devastate the communities impacted, but the new and invasive species of flea led to eternal challenges with environmental change and disruption. Yet again, this example of bioterrorism demonstrates the true level of harm that humans can cause (Harris).

The Rajneeshee Bioterrorist Attack: Cult-Induced Salmonella Poisoning in Oregon

In 1984, a religious cult in Oregon, led by the controversial spiritual leader Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, orchestrated a bioterror attack with the aim of influencing a local election. The group sought to make voters sick and unable to vote in order to manipulate the election outcome, ensuring their preferred candidates would win positions of power in the local government.

The cult members carefully planned their attack by cultivating Salmonella bacteria and contaminating salad bars at multiple restaurants in Oregon. Over the course of their operation, they infected hundreds of residents, leading to widespread illness. As a result, the voter turnout was significantly impacted, aligning with the cult’s objectives.In order to test this form of bioterrorist attack, the cult began assessing the efficacy of their infection methods through the salad bars, specifically the salad dressing stations in local restaurants. Following this, the members of the cult then infected the entire water supply for the city alongside salad bars and salad dressing stations. This led to over 700 cases of salmonella in the community and effectively incapacitated several voters from this community. Typically, there are around only five cases of salmonella in a community for a given year (Török et al.).

Beyond the immediate public health crisis, the attack raised serious concerns about the vulnerability of food sources and the potential for bioterrorism to be executed at a local level. It was one of the first documented instances of bioterrorism in the United States and demonstrated how non-state actors could weaponized biological agents to achieve their political or ideological goals.

This attack demonstrates the  polarizing nature of politics and how bioterrorism is a real threat when political climates are  unstable due to their effective nature in deterring or changing outcomes in official elections and proceedings.

Amerithrax: The 2001 Anthrax Mail Attacks

The Amerithrax attacks of 2001 remain one of the most infamous cases of bioterrorism in modern U.S. history. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to prominent news organizations and government officials, leading to the deaths of five people and infecting 17 others. The attacks instilled widespread fear and uncertainty across the country, as authorities scrambled to determine the source and motivation behind them.

Investigations led to the identification of Dr. Bruce Ivins, a scientist working at a U.S. government biodefense laboratory, as the primary suspect. Ivins was known for his expertise in anthrax research, and the strain used in the attacks was linked to his laboratory. Despite circumstantial evidence suggesting his involvement, Ivins died by suicide before he could be formally charged. This left a very dark and frightening tone in the United States. With extreme distrust of science and government workers and no clear answers, the Amerithrax attacks of 2001 leave a true stain of fear and devastation on the United States of America.

The Amerithrax attacks had profound consequences on national security policies and public health preparedness. In response, the U.S. government implemented stricter regulations on biological research and increased funding for biosecurity measures. The incident also highlighted the persistent threat of bioterrorism and the challenges associated with preventing and responding to such attacks. Under the current administration, there are threats to cut or reduce monitoring and tracking of volatile substances and bioterrorism threats. As time goes on we move further and further away from the Amerithrax attacks of 2001, it is likely that there will be less and less understanding of the devastation that came from Amerithrax. With this, there’s a threat of history repeating itself. Reducing regulations and monitoring is bound to cause more instability and less security for the United States (Guillemin).

Global, National, and Local Protections Against Bioterrorism

To combat bioterrorism, governments and international organizations have established various layers of protection. Below is a concise breakdown of the protections in place for each societal level.

Global Efforts

• The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) prohibits the development, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons.
• UN Counter-Terrorism Center (UNCCT) is a global program that provides training for member states on terrorism events through capacity building, technical assistance and training courses.
• The World Health Organization (WHO) monitors disease outbreaks and strengthens global preparedness for bioterrorist threats.

National Protections (U.S.)

• The CDC and Department of Homeland Security have biosecurity measures and response plans in place. The CDC works to Identify biological agents, monitor spread, and provide medical guidance for treatment and prevention.
• Federal Emergency Response Management Agency: FEMA Coordinate emergency response including logistics, resource allocation, and management of mass casualty events.

Local Readiness

• Hospitals and emergency responders receive training for biological incident response.
• Cities have established disease surveillance and early detection programs.
• State of Iowa preparedness
  • Iowa Health Disaster Council: IHDC. Public health information sharing venue that focuses on healthcare planning, preparedness initiatives, and response activities.
    • Phase 1: Comprehensive needs assessment, medical direction, preparedness planning, initial implementation.
    • Phase 2: Development and regional implementation of hospital and EMS services

Future Threats of Bioterrorism

With advancements in biotechnology and synthetic biology, new threats emerge. Gene editing tools could be misused to enhance pathogens, making future bioterrorism threats even more sophisticated. Governments must continue investing in surveillance, countermeasures, and research to stay ahead of potential biological threats. As mentioned above, changes in federal Administration lead to changes in funding and different perspectives on the importance of preventative measures for Bio terrorism and public health. With reductions and funding, there is inherently more risk for a bioterrorism attack. There is less surveillance, less professional staff with the expertise to work to prevent and monitor bioterrorist threats, and less Public Health Initiative work to educate the public on dangers of bioterrorism.

Understanding the history and impact of bioterrorism is crucial for global security and public health preparedness.

It is well known that, as the transition to the new federal administration began in 2024, there was a significant shift in priorities toward improving the national debt status and reducing government spending. The administration took a particularly aggressive approach to identifying and cutting programs it viewed as unnecessary, duplicative, or excessive. While fiscal responsibility is often a goal of incoming leadership, this strategy generated substantial public backlash, particularly due to its immediate impact on federally funded research and grant programs.

Many of these programs, especially those dedicated to public health, education, and initiatives focused on minority populations, faced abrupt freezes in funding, new restrictions, or complete cuts. These constraints disrupted vital ongoing projects and limited the ability of organizations to investigate or respond to complex societal and health-related issues. This has led to a public health planning crisis. Specifically in the area of disaster preparedness and response in relation to CBRN. In certain cases, the limitations were viewed as intentional efforts to suppress research that could potentially challenge federal policy or reveal existing inequities in systems of care, education, and opportunity.

These abrupt and unexpected changes led to a notable increase in civic engagement among public entities, academic institutions, advocacy groups, and private stakeholders in federal proceedings and advocacy work. Many of these individuals and organizations depend on federal support for their survival or contribute to broader efforts for social and scientific advancement which has been made impossible or nearly impossible by the imposed cuts and restrictions of funding. Their action in the world of policy and advocacy reflects a broader societal demand: to be seen and heard by those making decisions that will inevitably shape the public landscape.

Among those taking part in this movement was Megan Mindy, the author of this chapter. In early April, Mindy traveled to Washington, D.C., through a University of Iowa–sponsored program aimed at educating legislators about pressing issues affecting communities and institutions related to the University of Iowa. The goal was to emphasize the consequences of current budgetary choices and to advocate for the continuation of essential federal support for threatened or cut programs.

During her visit, Mindy attended the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Public Witness Day and the corresponding Subcommittee Hearing at the United States Capitol. The hearing was chaired by Representative Robert Aderholt, with Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro serving as the ranking member. The event provided a platform for ten witnesses from across the country to present the challenges facing their organizations in light of the current administration’s budget decisions (“Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education – Public Witness Day”).

These individuals delivered deeply personal testimonies, each bringing stories from their respective communities. Their appeals ranged from calls for basic operational funding to in depth and passionate explanations of how cuts have threatened vital public services related to their community or organization. One of the most impactful speakers was Christopher Frech, Co-Chair of the Alliance for Biosecurity. A former congressional staffer of eleven years, Frech returned to Capitol Hill to express his concerns about the federal government’s cuts to biodefense and public health preparedness (“Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education – Public Witness Day”).

Frech outlined the scope and significance of the work conducted by the Alliance for Biosecurity, which focuses on the development of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics, and medical devices. These innovations are designed in direct response to CBRN threats- chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear- including anthrax, smallpox, MPox, botulism, chemical weapons, and emerging dangers like fentanyl poisoning. Despite its private-sector status, the Alliance relies heavily on collaboration with the federal government. Its efforts serve as a leader of national disaster preparedness and emergency response. Bioterrorism was the main focus of Frech’s testimonial and the risks that have risen due to funding constraints (“Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education – Public Witness Day”).

During his testimony, Frech expressed grave concern over the depth of funding cuts facing programs critical to national security. He emphasized that the weakening of biosecurity infrastructure could place the entire country at risk. Among his key requests was a clear commitment to upholding the National Biodefense Strategy, a framework that outlines how the country should prepare for and respond to biological threats. Without sustained investment, Frech warned, the nation’s ability to respond effectively to disasters could collapse. Not only could the preparedness initiatives collapse, but the safety, wellbeing, and prevention efforts of this organization would be rendered to nothing. Bioterrorism threats are on the rise as the United States’ relationship with international entities rapidly changes and domestically, the extremely polarizing political climate is breeding civil unrest (“Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education – Public Witness Day”).

Frech also raised concerns about the prior decision, under President Donald Trump, to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization. He explained that if the U.S. intends to separate from international bodies responsible for health oversight, it must simultaneously enhance its domestic infrastructure through both public and private means. Frech once again touched on the powerful nature of working alongside federal administraions for preparedness, not separating power. Without this balance, the nation becomes vulnerable to global threats without sufficient internal resources to respond (Frech) (“Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education – Public Witness Day”).

Frech also emphasized the importance of preserving public-private partnerships, which allow for innovation, agility, and shared responsibility. These collaborations are essential to developing rapid responses to biological threats, but they cannot be sustained without consistent federal support. Public-private partnerships, he explained, depend on mutual trust and predictable funding. When funding becomes unstable, the partnership begins to erode, and the public faces the consequences.

The testimonies offered throughout the hearing made it clear that budget decisions do not occur in a vacuum. Every dollar cut from public health preparedness or education has a ripple effect, weakening the infrastructure designed to protect and uplift the population. In areas such as biosecurity, underinvestment today could result in catastrophic outcomes tomorrow such as a widespread bioterrorist attack. As Frech noted, these concerns are not guesswork. They are grounded in the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and the gaps revealed in disaster preparedness and response during this time and decades of emergency response history.

Megan Mindy’s experience in Washington offered a front-row view of this urgent conversation and negotiation. Her presence at the hearing was not only an educational opportunity but also a call to action. It revealed the crucial role that individuals, students, and professionals play in shaping public discourse and influencing policy. These efforts reflect a growing awareness that government policy, particularly concerning funding, must be informed by the realities on the ground and in the communities served(“Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education – Public Witness Day”).

As the current administration works to balance financial cuts with public responsibility, it must consider the long-term impacts of its decisions. Testimonies like Frech’s provide valuable insight into what is at stake. In many ways, these testimonies serve as evidence, not only of the need for funding but of the very real lives affected by decisions made behind closed doors and how these decisions can wreak havoc on centuries of preventative public health infrastructure in the United States (“Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education – Public Witness Day”).

Ultimately, Mindy’s participation in this program reinforces the importance of direct engagement in democratic processes. Advocacy at the federal level, especially when grounded in research, lived experience, and community representation, remains one of the most powerful tools for shaping a more equitable and prepared society (Mindy) (“Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education – Public Witness Day”).

Carr, Joseph. Deadly Viruses and Warfare: A Historical Perspective. Oxford University Press, 2015.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Bioterrorism Overview.” CDC, 2021, www.cdc.gov/bioterrorism/overview.html.

Guillemin, Jeanne. Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism. Columbia University Press, 2005.

Harris, Sheldon. Factories of Death: Japanese Biological Warfare, 1932-1945, and the American Cover-up. Routledge, 2002.

Török, Thomas J., et al. “A Large Community Outbreak of Salmonellosis Caused by Intentional Contamination of Restaurant Salad Bars.” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 278, no. 5, 1997, pp. 211-218.

Wheelis, Mark. Deadly Cultures: Biological Weapons Since 1945. Harvard University Press, 2006.

ChatGPT. “Discussion on Bioterrorism History and Protections.” OpenAI, 2025.

Promising Examples of FEMA’s Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management | CDC Foundation. (2025). Cdcfoundation.org. Links to an external site.

https://www.cdcfoundation.org/whole-community-promising-examples‌ CDC. (2024, June 21). Bioterrorism and Anthrax: The Threat. Anthrax. https://www.cdc.gov/anthrax/bioterrorism/index.html#:~:text=Bioterrorism%20involves%20intentionally%20releasing%20viruses,likely%20agent%20for%20such%20attacks.

4.7 Public Fear and Mental Health Impacts. (2023, May 30). Fema.gov. https://www.fema.gov/cbrn-tools/key-planning-factors-bio/kpf-4/7

Biological Incident Annex August 2008 Biological Incident Annex BIO-1. (n.d.). https://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf_BiologicalIncidentAnnex.pdf

Preventing and Countering Bioterrorism in the wake of COVID-19 | Office of Counter-Terrorism. (2018). Un.org. https://www.un.org/counterterrorism/events/Preventing-and-Countering-Bioterrorism-in-the-wake-of-COVID-19

Iowa Legislative Services Agency. (2021). Iowa Legislature. Iowa.gov. https://www.legis.iowa.gov/

Joint Emergency Communications Center. (2025). Jecc-Ema.org. http://www.jecc-ema.org/ema/hazardmitigation.php

Yellow Fever Fiend. (2023, May 15). Science History Institute. https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/yellow-fever-fiend/

FutureLearn. (2025). Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Public Health Dimensions. FutureLearn. https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/biosecurity-terrorism

UNICRI: United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute. (2020, July 2). Unicri.it. https://unicri.it/news/webinar-covid-19-and-future-pandemics-spectre-bioterrorism

Biowarfare and Bioterrorism Timeline – 1960 through 2020. (2020). Auburn.edu. https://webhome.auburn.edu/~simmorb/samples/files/biotimeline/past/1960_2020.html

The Ultimate Guide to Emergency Preparedness and Response. (2023, March 29). SafetyCulture. https://safetyculture.com/topics/emergency-preparedness-and-response/

FEMA’S ROLE IN MANAGING BIOTERRORIST ATTACKS AND THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS ON BIOTERRORISM PREPAREDNESS. (2025). Govinfo.gov. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-107shrg75441/html/CHRG-107shrg75441.htm

Baumgaertner, E. (2017, May 28). Trump’s Proposed Budget Cuts Trouble Bioterrorism Experts. Nytimes.com; The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/28/us/politics/biosecurity-trump-budget-defense.html

*AI tool used to assist in grammatical editing suggestions and ensuring smoothness of outline. Tool is cited above.

Mindy, Megan. Personal notes from the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Public Witness Day Hearing. United States Capitol, 4 Apr. 2025. Personal communication.

Mindy, Megan. Personal summary of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Public Witness Day Hearing. United States Capitol, 4 Apr. 2025. Heard live. Personal communication.