Team:TU Delft-Leiden/Human Practices/landmines

Case study: Detecting Landmines using ELECTRACE

To further investigate the opportunities of our ELECTRACE system, we will look into a specific application: using ELECTRACE to detect landmines. This will serve as a proof-of-principle for a wide range of other applications. In this section, we will provide the main arguments why this application was chosen, by looking at the current problems caused by landmines worldwide. Next, we will provide an overview of the use of ELECTRACE for the detection of landmines. To conclude this section, various ethical considerations arising by using ELECTRACE as a system to detect landmines will be discussed and considered.

Global problem: Landmines

Landmines and unexploded remnants of war represent a major problem, since several countries are heavily contaminated. In 1996, more than 15,000 people were killed or maimed by landmines[1], mostly in developing countries [2]. A more recent study, from 2012, indicates a total number of 3628 mine/ERW (explosive remnants of war) casualties. Although the number has decreased, this still represents an alarming number of over ten casualties per day. Yet, the real number of casualties is likely to be significantly higher, because in many areas, a lot of casualties go unrecorded [4].

Due to the nature of the modern conflicts, the number of civilian casualties caused by mines has heavily increased. As a comparison, during World War I, 15% of all fatalities were civilians, and this number increased to 65% in the World War II, including the Holocaust. Nowadays, more than 78% of the people that are injured in hostilities are civilians [1]. One of the main reasons for the increase in civilian casualties is the use of landmines. A substantial amount (47%) of the landmine casualties in 2012 were children [4]. Currently, all over the world there are over ten countries with very heavy contamination (>100km²), including: Croatia, Colombia, Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Thailand [3]. More than 350 models of landmines are currently available, not only to official armies, but to all fighting groups.

Landmines do not differentiate between the foot of a combatant from that of a playing child. They are “weapon of mass destruction in slow motion” that go beyond any peace agreements. Mines placed during a conflict can still kill or injure civilians decades later. Next to that, after a conflict, areas remain contaminated with explosive remnants of war (ERW). These are explosive weapons that somehow failed to detonate and are left behind. They pose dangers similar to landmines. An example of the impact of old landmines and ERW is Vietnam. Although the Vietnam War is already over for decades, Vietnam is still suffering from the large-scale use of landmines during that conflict. In the period 1999-2012, landmines caused 1683 casualties, of which 630 were killed [4]. Another example of this problem can be found in the Balkans. Serbia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina recently (May 2014) suffered major flooding. Due to landslides caused by this flood, landmines from the Bosnian War (1992-1995) resurfaced and dislodged, putting in danger the people living in the areas as well as rescuers [5][6].

Even the purpose of landmines usage has changed: they are more and more used against civilians, in order to terrorize communities and prevent population movement. Sometimes they are laid to deprive a location population access to water sources, wood and fuel. New antipersonnel landmines have been laid in recent years in Yemen, apparently by government forces. There are also allegations that South Sudan, Sudan and Turkey have used antipersonnel mines. The governments of Syria and Myanmar have made use of landmines in 2012 and 2013. Mines are also placed by non-state armed groups (rebel armies, terrorists) in Afghanistan, Colombia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Syria, Thailand, Tunisia, and Yemen. In this case, the used devices are usually not “real” landmines, but victim-activated improvised explosive devices [4]. Within mine affected communities, the highest level of danger is faced by the “base-of-pyramid” people (people from developing countries, that live with 2$ or less/day). They need to ramble widely in search for fresh water, fuel and wood, increasing the danger of entering unmarked minefields [2].

*More facts and numbers about the global problem posed by landmines can be found in Desk study concerning landmines

Current landmine detection methods

To solve the landmine problem, first landmine usage has to stop. Due to initiatives such as the ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines), landmine usage is seeing a steady decline. However, as already mentioned, landmines laid decades ago can still cause trouble. Detection and removal of landmines is therefore of the utmost importance. In this section, we will investigate current methods for landmine detection. To familiarize ourselves with the current methods in use for landmine detection and to understand better the upsides and downsides of these methods, we got in contact with different organizations that are active in this field.

The results of the interviews with Mr. Justin Brandy,senior adviser at Norwegian People’s Aid Mr. Justin Brandy, Ms. Suzanne Oosterwijk, Programme Officer Security & Disarmament at PAX, a Dutch peace organization (which was until recently known as IKV Pax Christi), Luitenant Kolonel (Lieutenant-Colonel) Bergman, commanding officer centre of expertise at Explosieven Opruimingsdienst Defensie (EODD) in Soesterberg and Mr. Horst Lenz,head of KampfmittelräumdienstRheinland-Pfalz (Bomb disposal team Rhineland-Palatinate) in Koblenz in Germany, helped us to gain a broad picture about the methods currently used for landmine detection and to asses their benefits along with opportunities for improvement.

Manual mine detection is one of the most common methods used. For instance, NPA relies primary on manual demining, using metal detection methods. This proved to be a cost-effective method compared with other possible alternatives. Usually, in countries where this organization is active the labor is quite cheap and this represents also a productive way to put people back to society.

Apart from this method, dogs are also used for landmines detection. NPA has a very large dog programme, being one of the leaders in using the canine detection. There are several advantages of using dogs. A mine-dog can find a mine buried as much as 6 metres deep in the ground or that have been laying buried for over 40 years. Next, on average can find a mine 20 times faster than a mine-clearance worker using a metal detector. However, dogs have several limitations, mainly due to the environmental conditions (eg. heat as well as the terrain). To overcome the dog usage limitations, there are experiments with loose free range dogs. Moreover, one organization is using rats for detection. The idea is similar as the dogs for the detection method. However, “at the end the day they are back to one man detection” meaning that manual demining is still required.

More sophisticated methods for landmines detection are also available. For example, there is a tool sensor which uses a ground penetrating reader and a metal detector. The main disadvantage of the method represents the high costs, which makes it not widely used. Other experimental methods include the usage of bees and plants changing color in the presence of nitrogen. These experiments did not yield very positive results and therefore these methods are currently not in use.

For manual mine detection, metal detection methods are widely used. The Kampfmittelräumdienst uses a magnetometer when a certain area is suspected to contains bombs. They go over there to thoroughly search the area for bombs “Magnetometers sense changes in field lines of the earth’s magnetic field due to the metal in the bomb. A larger bomb has more influence on the magnetic field, but depth, position and shape also matter.” When a signal is picked up, the metal object has to be dug up. The signal often does not match with what is found: “Sometimes you expect a hand grenade, and you find a 250 pound bomb!” However most of the times a suspicious signal just comes from an iron bar or something like that.

Yet, the use of a magnetometer pose several difficulties. Although, they can detect signals up to a depth of approximately 5 meters, much of the bombs lay at depths of around 10-15 meters and therefore cannot be found in this way. Lenz: “Although I’m not really convinced of the number, it is said that 30% of the bombs is missed by magnetometer searches.” “Current methods are not that satisfying that I can go to sleep well. Words like ‘maybe’ and ‘possibly’ are not in use by EOD specialists, because it is a matter of life and death.”

In addition, apart from the physical limitation imposed by the detection methods, when dealing with landmines clearance there are also several social limitations, including poor infrastructure and a low level of education of the local workers (mainly due to the fact they don’t have great exposure to technology). Other problems are posed by the heavy machinery. Mr. Brady recalled cases in Angola, where the equipment was not able to arrive at the field. Also, the equipment consumes a lot of fuel and with metal detection battery life represents an issue. All these small things tend to become obstacles in the long-run.

On top of it all, the price for screening affected areas is very high, although the organizations are taking various measures to lower the price. Mr. Brady said that the price for screening the area is around $1 per square meter, including all the costs: logistics, administration costs, etc. However, in some cases it can be more expensive, depending on the location. A notable aspect to mention here is the huge amount of square meters that have to be initially screened.

Also Mr. Lenz mentioned the high costs of landmine detection: “Private companies will ask between €2.500,- and €10.000,- for the screening of a single construction site, which comprises just doing historical review and taking a look on air photographs.”

From all the interview conducted we concluded that there is still room for improvement of the current methods in use. Also, the main important elements that need to be taken into account in the detection method are: speed, versatility, costs and maintaining the safety standards.

Using ELECTRACE to detect landmines

In the section ELECTRACE, we described the microbial based sensorial system developed by our team, as a plug&play device to which every inducible (biosensor) promoter can be added. As a proof of principle, we developed a promoter inducible by landmine compounds TNT, DNT and DNB. In this way, we provide a novel approach to the landmine detection, which is cheaper, faster and more cost-effective by using synthetic biology.

To detect landmines with the ELECTRACE system, one injects a groundwater sample of a possibly contaminated area into the device. We will make use of the fact that landmines, and especially IEDs (improvised explosive devices), are not tightly sealed and leak TNT and DNT. These compounds can then be found (although in very low concentrations) in the groundwater. Detection of these compounds in groundwater is therefore a clear indication that there are landmines in the proximity.

ELECTRACE will not be able to determine the exact location of the landmines. However, it will be able to screen large areas fast, greatly reducing the area which has to be manually screened with metal detectors. In this way, the ELECTRACE system would be a great add-on to current mine detection methods. This will be due to the advantages of the generic ELECTRACE system determined in the ELECTRACE section: inexpensive, portable, easy to handle and quantifiable.

First, our device is cheaper compared with the current methods in use. While the price of the present methods can go up to €10.000,- for the screening a single construction site, ELECTRACE has only moderate fixed costs and low variable costs. The two main elements of the ELECTRACE system, namely the genetically modified bacteria, and the potentiostat circuitry, have great potential to be mass-produced. Mass production will allow the economy of scale effect to arise, making the system very inexpensive. Also, the novel technique of paper microfluidics provides an opportunity to make our device even cheaper. In addition to direct costs, indirect costs of using ELECTRACE as a way to detect landmines are also lower, compared with the methods currently in use. For instance, the labor costs can be greatly reduced by the fact that no expertise or advanced training is required to handle the device.

Second, ELECTRACE is a portable device , fact that makes it even more attractive to be used as a detection system for landmines. During the interviews conducted during the development stage of our system, we discovered that poor infrastructure pose several limitations for the methods that are currently used. Mr. Brady recalled cases on Angola, where the equipment was not able to arrive at the field.By replacing the heavy machinery with our hand-held device, this limitation will be overcome.

Anther great advantage of ELECTRACE as away to screen for landmines, is the fact that is easy to handle. In this way even persons that are not familiar with technology can easily adopt and use it. This implies that organizations that are active in this field, could hire more locals by using our device. Indirect benefits represents cost-reduction, but also social integration of the people leaving in the proximity of affected areas.

Fourth, our device provides a quantifiable output. This functionality can help the organization dealing with landmines problem around the globe to chose the areas where further actions are need, based on the degree of contamination.

Ethical considerations

ELECTRACE has a two-sided impact on the world. While, the benefits (previously identified) are very easy to grasp, our iGEM team, as main developer of this device, took in consideration also the possible negative effects that might arise by using ELECTRACE to detect land mines.These issues will be further addressed.

One main concern that may arise against using this device includes a general argument against synthetic biology is the danger that the modified organisms that are generated in the lab will fall into the wrong hands. If ELECTRACE would be a device that can be bought without any restrictions, bombs can be easily tested by their manufactures. Then, they can work on improving their quality and even making them undetectable. This will generate undesirable outcomes that will make the current methods used for screening landmines less efficient.

To mitigate this, strict practices and policies need to be developed for commercializing ELECTRACE. A first step was done by our iGEM team, by discussing with different stakeholders that are active in combating the negative effects of landmines. Next, the governmental agencies play a pivotal role in designing suitable policies that allow safe and ethic commercialization of ELECTRACE. Our team envisions this device, serving as a landmines detection application, to be sold only to anti-mining organizations, and by any means should not be available on any retail store. This will reduce greatly this risk.

Another concern is related to the safety, more specially the danger that genetically modified organisms will escape from the lab into the environment and pose a detrimental effect on the earth’s ecosystem [8]. All these concerns can be mitigated by ensuring that all the safety requirements are met.

For an iGEM project, subsequently for our iGEM team, safety is an element of pivotal importance. First, during the development phase, our team strictly followed all the safety requirements imposed by TU Delft University, that hosts our laboratory. The safety procedures that guided the activity of our team, were thoroughly reviewed and approved by the chairman of the Safety Committee of the Applied Sciences faculty of Delft University of Technology, Jos van Winsen.

In addition, our team considered the safety for the end product. The is one of the reasons, why the team decided to realize the device using the well know bacterium E. coli. Also, a key element to mention here is that the organisms used for the device do not pose any risk to humans or the environment.

To conclude, there is a balance between the risks posed by bringing synthetic biology outside the lab and the positive externalities derived from the usage of ELECTRACE. Our team developed a microbial based sensor, capable of detecting landmines in a responsible way. Using landmines as a proof of principle for ELECTRACE, makes it a device that reflects deep values, including human safety, sustainability, justice and integrity. In consequence, the benefits of using ELECTRACE to detect landmines mentioned previously, outweighs the possible negative effects.

References

[1] Gino, S. (1996). The Horror of Landmines. Scientific American

[2] Michael, C., John, G., & John, T. (2007). The Value of Statistical Life and the Economics of Landmine Clearance in Developing Countries. World Development, 512-531

[3] The-monitor. (n.d.). Contamination. Retrieved from the-monitor.org: http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?url=lm/2013/maps/minecontamination.html

[4]International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Cluster Munition Coalition. “Landmine Monitor 2013” November 2013 ICBL. Retrieved on 14 July 2014. http://www.the-monitor.org/index.php/publications/display?url=lm/2013/

[5]Holly Yan, Kisa Mlela Santiago. “Epic flooding in Balkans raises fears about landmines surfacing” 20 May 2014. CNN Retrieved on 14 July 2014 http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/19/world/europe/balkans-flooding/

[6] “Balkan floods – rebuilding lives one month later” 16 June 2014. British Red Cross. Retrieved on 14 July 2014 http://www.redcross.org.uk/About-us/News/2014/June/Balkan-floods-rebuilding-lives-one-month-later

[7] James, A., Natalja, S., Guy-Bart, S., Thomas, D., Julian, S., & Mauricio, B. (2012). Engineering and ethical perspectives . science & society , 584-590.

[8] Synthetic Biology: playing God or just plain odd? Part 2. (2013, July 26). Retrieved August 10, 2014, from allinthegenes.wordpress.com: http://allinthegenes.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/synthetic-biology-playing-god-or-just-plain-odd-part-2/

[9] Dogs.JPG Retrieved October 11, 2014, from http://www.npaid.org/Our-work/Mine-Action/What-We-Do/Clearance-of-Mines-and-Explosive-Remnants-of-War/Mine-Detection-Dogs