Needham was fooled into believing the US had used biological weapons in the Korean War??
Not at all. None of his detractors have withstood investigation, despite the combination of massive physical suppression of the Report, combined with a well-funded 'debunking' industry.
The accuracy of the ISC Report was confirmed on the basis of documents not available in 1952, by Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman in their book 'The United States and Biological Warfare: Secrets from the Early Cold War and Korea' (Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1998). See also Thomas Powell, "Biological Warfare in the Korean War: Allegations and Cover-up" (2019): http://sdonline.org/73/biological-warfare-in-the-korean-war-allegations-and-cover-up/
There were few more qualified researchers than Needham in 1951, and he was no fool. As a lifelong bench researcher, he knew and avoided the many pitfalls in his discipline, as a casual reading of his report demonstrates: 'The Report of the International Scientific Commission for the Investigation of Facts Concerning Bacteriological Warfare in Korea and China' (the ISC report). ISBN: 978-1-7358213-3-7
https://www.amazon.com/International-Scientific-Commission-Investigation-Bacterial-ebook/dp/B08VMWVT7W
In addition to the ISC Report, the Amazon edition, above, contains 200 pages on the war's origins and its social impacts, together with testimony from nineteen pilots who flew the missions, from journalists who interviewed them, and from biowarfare experts.
What kinds of designs could exist that aren't common today?
There are at least three, very successful, democratic designs, though TINA shields us from their baneful influence: Switzerland, China, and Singapore.
If we measure their implementation of six components of democracy–formal, elective, popular, procedural, operational and substantive–we find none of the three follows (slave state) Athens' model.
Each implements 'of the people, by the people, for the people' uniquely.
The Swiss invest unimaginable time and energy voting for almost everything,: call it 'input legitimacy'. A 37-year-old Zuricher has had the opportunity to take part in 548 referenda, 181 of them federal, 176 cantonal, and 191 municipal. Average turnout is 45% so he has voted in about 246 referenda.
Second place goes to China, both in its citizens' estimation and in decades of surveys by Gallup, Harvard, YouGov, and Edelman. The PRC uses heavy opinion polling to guide policy formation, and amateur politicians to provide democratic oversight. It's 90% cheaper than Swiss democracy but still runs it a close second.
Singapore's third-place model blends Confucian officialdom and British parliamentarianism and depends upon outcome legitimacy: the ruling/founding party has always been in power because it so consistently produces good outcomes that nobody seriously considers chancing alternatives.
More on this from Daniel Bell's The China Model: Political Meritocracy and the Limits of Democracy and China's New Confucianism: Politics and Everyday Life in a Changing Society.
For a more comprehensive explanation of China's success read Why China Leads the World: Talent at the Top, Data in the Middle, Democracy at the Bottom, by me.