There was a character published by Dell Comics in 1940 called Doctor Hormone, a scientist who had developed an assortment of biological chemicals that could, among other things, turn people into human/animal hybrids. When a foreign dictator stole some of his formulas to create an army of super-soldiers, the Doctor joined the war effort against him, using his synthetic hormones to transform both friends and foes.
nm
That same chemical agent was used twice in the MGM version of The Wizard of Oz: in frozen form, by Glinda, against the Witch of the West’s poppies, and in liquid form, by Dorothy, against the Witch herself.
I don’t think that Dorothy knew what was going to happen when she tried to put out the fire.
ETA: And assuming the witch knew what water would do to her, having a bucket of water around is as stupid as the aliens from Signs coming to Earth when they knew that water was toxic.
Cool!
Well, there’s this character.
On Stargate SG-1, the Tok’ra develop a chemical weapon that was basically nerve gas to Goa’uld symbiotes. It was later refined by the Tau’ri (read: us). It think it was only deployed on a large scale by the Trust. The good guys decided not to use it, but their concerns were more strategic than moral.
And in the much earlier short story “Solution Unsatisfactory,” the “good guys” bring an unspecified (but obviously a version of the then-coming WWII) to an end by using radioactive dust on the bad guys’ capital city. The scientist responsible for development of the dust (a woman - in 1939!) commits suicide by entering the production facility without a protective suit.
Agreed (to both).
Anyway: is the OP’s purpose to determine whether or not use of chemical/biological weapons is considered to be morally wrong in the culture from which these fictions emerge? Or what? (I guess I’m surprised that the topic doesn’t seem to have emerged into the open, after so many posts.)
Oh, nothing that heavy—it’s just a matter of curiosity, really. It was something that I happened to notice, just as a consumer of fiction, especially as studying such weapons is a little academic hobby of mine.
Although I admit I do also find it interesting (heh, or “curious”) how these kinds of taboos do or don’t manifest themselves culturally, how it changes over time, or what the exceptions are like when the pop up. A “a question of fashion changing as she does,” to quote Churchill. 
I agree–the changes are interesting. (A similar topic might be 'implicit judgments in depictions of “who shot first” in fictional works of different eras.')
I think she’s more than just the cook.
