Team:TU Delft-Leiden/Human Practices/landmines

Case study: Detecting Landmines using ELECTRACE

The proof of principle for our microbial-based system represents landmines detection. 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 about the application of ELECTRACE for landmines problem. 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 pollution and unwanted explosions represents a major problem nowadays, when several countries are heavily contaminated. In 1996, more than 15000 people were killed or maimed by landmines each year[1] mostly on the developing countries [2]. A more recent study, from 2012, indicates a total number of 3628 mine/ERW casualties. Although the number decreased over the last six years, this still represents an alarming number of over ten casualties per day. Furthermore, at least 1066 people were killed and 2552 people were injured; for 10 casualties it was not known if they survived the incident. 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 the 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% that are injured in hostilities are civilians [1]. A substantial amount (47%) of the casualties in 2012 were children [4]. Currently, all over the world there are ten countries with very heavy contamination (>100 〖km〗^2), including: Chile, Columbia, 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.

This scenario is even more dramatic, given the fact that 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. 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 (a State Party of the Mine Ban Treaty), apparently by government forces. There are also allegations that State Parties South Sudan, Sudan and Turkey have used antipersonnel mines. From the countries who have not signed the treaty, 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].

Although several world-wide organizations are trying to change the perception towards landmines, and to diminish the negative effects caused by it, the problem still persists. The number of un-exploded bombs around the globe is unknown. This leads to an opportunity to find a solution a more efficient manner -ELECTRACE.

*More facts and numbers about the global problem posed by landmines, can be found in the Appendix 1, that is a desk research done by our team.

Why the current landmine detection methods represents an issue

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 interview with Mr. Justin Brandy,senior adviser at Norwegian People’s Aid (http://www.npaid.org/), 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 curently used for landmine detection and to asses their benefits along with opportunities for improvement.

Manual demining is one of the most common methods used. For instance, NPA rely 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, dog 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. These include: 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. This implies, not keeping them on the line, bring some versatility. In the current methods they are boxing the area. 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”.

Figure 1. Mine Detection Dogs (Retrieved from http://www.npaid.org/Our-work/Mine-Action/What-We-Do/Clearance-of-Mines-and-Explosive-Remnants-of-War/Mine-Detection-Dogs)

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 so common.

Another experiment is a plant that reacts to nitrogen, turning into a specific color. But, this is subjected also to some limitations. Another experiment for detection was by using bees. In the end this was classified as an inefficient method.

Kampfmittelräumdienst uses a magnetometer when a certain area is suspected that 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. Few examples include: poor infrastructure, low level of education of the 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 on Angola, where the equipment was not able to arrive at the field.

Next, 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 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 they target price for screening the area less than 1$ per square meter, including all the costs: logistics, administration costs, etc. However, in some cases can go beyond this value, or could be more expensive, depending on the locations. A notable aspect to mention here is the huge amount of square meters that have to be initially detected. For instance in the initial survey 100.0000 square meters are identified; this is brought down trough triangulation of data, to 20.000 square meters.

Also Mr. Lenz mentioned that: “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 and maintaining the safety standards.

Our proposed solution: using ELECTRACE to detect landmines

Cost benefit analysis and ethical considerations in using ELECTRACE to detect landmines

The history of synthetic biology goes back in 1979 when the Nobel Prize winning chemist Har Hobinh synthesized a 207 base-pair DNA sequence. Since then, the field has evolved quickly [7] allowing the development of various applications that can improve the quality of our lives and solve real-world problems, as ELECTRACE. Yet, in order to bring the applications of synthetic biology outside the lab, this umbrella term –synthetic biology needs to be accepted by the mass population. In the following part, the main concerns raised against synthetic biology will be discussed along with our proposed ways to mitigate them, focusing on the biosensors as a way to detect landmines.

Nowadays, the importance of monitoring different parameters in fields such as environment has become of at its utmost importance. Although the technology evolved quickly and various kinds of sensors are commercially available, there is still room for innovative ways to detect -such as the biosensor device –ELECTRACE. Using this biosensor that gives an electrical read-out, several areas can be screen for landmines in more cost-effective, efficient and fast manner. Using this device, synthetic biology can impact people’s lives all over the world, offering a safer environment and serving also to the base of pyramid people, overcoming the social injustice problem. ELECTRACE has a multi-dimensional impact on the world. While, the benefits are easily to identify, our iGEM team, as the product owner and main developer of this device, took in consideration also the possible negative implications posed by using ELECTRACE to detect land mines, even from the developing stages. These issues will be further address.

One main concern that may arise against using this device includes the general arguments against synthetic biology and is related to biohackers. Put differently, is the danger that the tools that are generated in the lab will fall into the wrong hands. In this case, if ELECTRACE is a device that can be bought without any restrictions, bombs can be easily tested by their manufactures. The 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 envision 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 the risks of biohakers. Another concern is related to the safety, more specially the danger that synthetically generated organisms will escape from the lab into the environment and the effect on the earth’s ecosystem [8]. All these concerns can be mitigate by ensuring Safety is an element of pivotal importance, not only during the developing phase, where standard measure and procedures are strictly followed, but also for the end product. A key element to mention here is that all the organisms used for the device does not pose any risks to humans or the environment. The is one of the reasons, why the team decided to realize the device using the well known bacterium E. coli. As an additional safety mechanisms, this bacteria is grown in an LD medium. Once the bacteria is out of our device the survival chances are minimum.

To conclude, our iGEM team aimed to develop a microbial based sensor, capable of detecting landmines in a responsible way. We considered transparency as playing an important role. Thus, from then designing stage, different stakeholders that are currently working in these area were involved. This measure is necessary to ensure that all the implications of developing such a device are taken into account. On the other side, responsible innovation goes beyond focusing on the process, but is also focused on the end-product. With this in mine, using landmines as a proof of principle for ELECTRACE , makes it a device that reflects deep values, including human safety, sustainability, justice and integrity.

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] he-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/