A question of control | Nature

Scientists must address the ethics of using neuroactive compounds to quash domestic crises. A number of countries are investigating the use of neuroactive compounds as a nonlethal way to

deal with riots and other domestic crises. The idea is to stun people temporarily, or otherwise change their behaviour, to help the authorities exert control (see page 950). Russian special

forces put that idea into practice in October 2002, when they sprayed a mixture of incapacitating agents into a Moscow theatre in an effort to free some 700 theatre-goers held captive by

Chechen rebels. The exact nature of the mixture remains secret; Russian authorities disclosed only that it included a component similar to the opiate fentanyl. But it obviously had a narrow

therapeutic window: about 130 hostages died as a result of inhaling the gas. This episode underscores the ethical conundrum — would the rebels have killed all the hostages? — that makes an

outright ban on the military use of incapacitating agents politically unrealistic. Instead, an acrimonious argument over the control of nonlethal weapons is now under way among the states

that have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention — which does not cover nonlethal uses for domestic riot control and the like — as well as the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, which

states that biological agents may be used only for “prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes”. Unfortunately, the various sides cannot even agree on how to define the exclusions

in the treaties. During this impasse, the wider community of life scientists should actively discuss the effectiveness and safety of potential incapacitating agents. In particular, academics

and non-governmental organizations involved in the debate should agree a list of compounds likely to be considered for use by military agencies, and publish it on the Internet. Scientists

could then submit comments to aid its annotation. Just listing potential agents does not necessarily imply an endorsement of their use. But by providing an accessible forum where scientists

can directly engage on the issue of nonlethal weapons, it could help inform the political debate — and might prevent disasters of the sort seen in Moscow. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Reprints and

permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE A question of control. _Nature_ 460, 933 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/460933b Download citation * Published: 19 August 2009 * Issue Date:

20 August 2009 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/460933b SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link Sorry, a shareable

link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative