Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41480101›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2025

Legacy and impact of the 1925 Geneva Protocol: one hundred years of treaties and debates on chemical and biological weapons.

Walter E Grunden, Olli H Tuovinen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Tumor Exposomics: A New Paradigm for Individualized Continuous Exposure Monitoring.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Walter E GrundenDepartment of History, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, United States.
Olli H TuovinenDepartment of Microbiology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This essay examines the legacy and impact of the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of chemical and biological weapons. This multinational treaty was an important milestone in the history of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction concluded in the wake of the horror engendered by the use of poison gases in World War I. However, the 1925 protocol did not address the issues of verification, manufacturing, stockpiling, and transferring products of chemical and biological weapons or production technologies. A second treaty, the result of the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, was concluded to address these issues. Despite the apparent success of prohibiting large-scale and widespread use of chemical and biological weapons, violations have occurred, nonetheless, and the treaties remain problematic in numerous ways. The centennial of this historic 1925 agreement and its successor treaties presents an opportunity for reflection upon their efficacy. Given that there have been "limited" episodes of chemical and biological warfare since that time, how can these events be explained in light of the protocol's prohibitions? This essay argues that the 1925 Geneva Protocol has a mixed legacy and, at best, can be deemed only a qualified success. Other factors, such as political deterrence, scientific and technological limitations, and the problematic nature of these types of weapons may account for the absence of their mass use. The essay aims to serve as an introduction to the historiographical literature with an emphasis on biological weapons and the Geneva Protocol and includes tables as reference guides concerning the types of weaponized pathogens and toxins in question.

Indexed as

biological weaponschemical weaponsGeneva Protocolinfectious diseasestoxins

Identifiers

PMID41480101
PMCPMC12755154

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.