The US military is funding development of a weapon that delivers a bout of excruciating pain from up to 2 kilometres away. Intended for use against rioters, it is meant to leave victims unharmed. But pain researchers are furious that work aimed at controlling pain has been used to develop a weapon. And they fear that the technology will be used for torture.
“I am deeply concerned about the ethical aspects of this research,” says Andrew Rice, a consultant in pain medicine at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital in London, UK. “Even if the use of temporary severe pain can be justified as a restraining measure, which I do not believe it can, the long-term physical and psychological effects are unknown.”
The research came to light in documents unearthed by the Sunshine Project, an organisation based in Texas and in Hamburg, Germany, that exposes biological weapons research. The papers were released under the US’s Freedom of Information Act.
One document, a research contract between the Office of Naval Research and the University of Florida in Gainesville, US, is entitled “Sensory consequences of electromagnetic pulses emitted by laser induced plasmas”.
It concerns so-called Pulsed Energy Projectiles (PEPs), which fire a laser pulse that generates a burst of expanding plasma when it hits something solid, like a person (New Scientist print edition, 12 October 2002). The weapon, destined for use in 2007, could literally knock rioters off their feet.
Pain trigger
According to a 2003 review of non-lethal weapons by the US Naval Studies Board, which advises the navy and marine corps, PEPs produced “pain and temporary paralysis” in tests on animals. This appears to be the result of an electromagnetic pulse produced by the expanding plasma which triggers impulses in nerve cells.
The new study, which runs until July and will be carried out with researchers at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, aims to optimise this effect. The idea is to work out how to generate a pulse which triggers pain neurons without damaging tissue.
The contract, heavily censored before release, asks researchers to look for “optimal pulse parameters to evoke peak nociceptor activation” – in other words, cause the maximum pain possible. Studies on cells grown in the lab will identify how much pain can be inflicted on someone before causing injury or death.
Long-term risk
New Scientist contacted two researchers working on the project. Martin Richardson, a laser expert at the University of Central Florida, US, refused to comment. Brian Cooper, an expert in dental pain at the University of Florida, distanced himself from the work, saying “I don’t have anything interesting to convey. I was just providing some background for the group.” His name appears on a public list of the university’s research projects next to the $500,000-plus grant.
John Wood of University College London, UK, an expert in how the brain perceives pain, says the researchers involved in the project should face censure. “It could be used for torture,” he says, “the [researchers] must be aware of this.”
Amanda Williams, a clinical psychologist at University College London, fears that victims risk long-term harm. “Persistent pain can result from a range of supposedly non-destructive stimuli which nevertheless change the functioning of the nervous system,” she says. She is concerned that studies of cultured cells will fall short of demonstrating a safe level for a plasma burst. “They cannot tell us about the pain and psychological consequences of such a painful experience.”
II. Police Toy With ‘Less Lethal’ Weapons
By David Hambling
NewScientist.com
4-30-5
Do you prefer your police officers to be armed with a gun or a good old-fashioned truncheon or night stick? Or perhaps something in between: say a radio-frequency stun weapon, or a semiconductor laser that can bring down a man from across the street?
Such “less lethal” weapons are closer to reality than many people realise. New Scientist has learned that the research arm of the US justice department, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is funding research into three such devices, all of which are intended to be used by the nation’s police forces to bring down suspects and control crowds. In theory they should be less harmful to both their intended targets and bystanders than existing weapons like tear gas and rubber bullets. But such is the secrecy shrouding the new weapons that it is impossible for independent outsiders to judge.
In a statement given to New Scientist, the NIJ has provided a limited description of all three devices. The first is a radio-frequency weapon being developed by Raytheon at Palo Alto, California, which appears to be based on a similar concept to the Active Denial System weapon that Raytheon developed for the US marines in 2001. The military version is designed to heat people’s skin with a 95-gigahertz microwave beam (New Scientist, 27 October 2001, p 26). With a range of 600 metres, it causes severe pain but, according to Raytheon, no damage. The NIJ has contracted the company to build a prototype suitable for use by police forces. Because it will be portable, it will presumably use less power and work over a shorter range.
The second device is described by the NIJ as “the first man-portable heat compliance weapon of its kind”. It uses a semiconductor laser for “force protection, crowd control, and access denial”. Though the Air Force Research Laboratory in Kirtland, New Mexico, has been contracted to produce a test-bed system, there is no known weapon, military or otherwise, that appears to work this way. Its effects and effectiveness can only be guessed at.
Further clues to the nature of these two devices can be gleaned from a November 2004 report produced by the NIJ’s research division. In it, Joe Cecconi of the NIJ described a possible directed-energy prototype weapon as being shotgun-sized, producing an area of intense heat 15 centimetres in diameter at a range of 16 metres, with a magazine capable of delivering 12 shots each of less than a second. The NIJ would not confirm or deny whether this was a description of either the radio-frequency or the heat weapon.
A third type of less-lethal weapon commissioned by the NIJ is a laser which produces a “plasma flash bang” at the point of impact, stunning and disorienting the victim. This is similar to the Pulsed Energy Projectile (PEP) system developed for the US marines (New Scientist, 5 March, p 8). The military system uses a chemical laser and weighs around 200 kilograms. The NIJ has commissioned Sterling Photonics of Albuquerque, New Mexico, to produce a “technology platform” for a police version that will be electrically powered and portable.
All three research programmes are due to end in September. But the information provided by the NIJ has so little detail about factors such as wavelengths and power levels that it is impossible to judge how safe the new weapons might be. There is no publicly available information on the effects of the Active Denial System weapon or plasma flash bangs.
As yet there are no non-lethal directed-energy weapons in use by law enforcers. The closest comparable devices are police electric-shock weapons, the best known of which is the Taser. This weapon was introduced in the 1970s, and became popular with police forces in the US during the 1990s. Critics have recently alleged that Tasers have caused the deaths of a number of suspects, and are prone to abuse (see “Taser troubles”), raising concerns that this pattern could be repeated with the new weapons.
Neil Davison of the Bradford Non-Lethal Weapons Research Project at the University of Bradford, UK, says more information about these weapons needs to be made public. “The non-lethal weapons community is always complaining about bad treatment in the media. But without more transparency about what is being developed, and what the effects on people are, suspicion is bound to be created.” He also points out that as these weapons may not leave any identifiable traces, allegations of abuse will be hard to prove.
He also notes there has long been a demand for a capability to turn the power output of these weapons up or down. “Some of these weapons may have a ‘lethal’ setting,” he warns.
Mike McBride, editor of the authoritative Jane’s Police and Security Equipment journal, says: “Until these systems have proven to be safer than existing systems – baton rounds, Tasers, tear gas – there is little likelihood of them being deployed operationally.” From issue 2497 of New Scientist magazine, 30 April 2005, page 23 Taser troubles
THE Taser is fast becoming the non-lethal weapon of choice for police forces in the US and the UK despite widespread concerns about its safety.
The hand-held weapon fires barbed darts connected to a power source that delivers a debilitating 50,000-volt jolt. A person who has been hit momentarily loses control of their muscles, and collapses instantly.
Many police officers have welcomed the weapon as an alternative to lethal firearms. But Amnesty International this month said it had catalogued 103 cases in which the targeted person has later died. Calling for “an independent, comprehensive medical study” into Taser safety, Amnesty listed drug intoxication, pre-existing heart conditions and “excited delirium” as serious risk factors in Taser-related deaths.
Taser International of Scottsdale, Arizona, which makes the weapon, says its tests and the weapon’s use in the field show it to be safe.
Tests on the effect of Taser shocks on the hearts of anaesthetised pigs due to begin this month have also been criticised by animal rights groups as cruel, and not representative of the effects on humans.
© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.