The three day weekend is almost here and we have enough content to keep you busy the whole time! This week we cover updates on the Biden administration’s response to the growing Ebola outbreak in Uganda, continued concerns about polio in New York, and international containment efforts. We also discuss a ton of new publications, including multiple new books and articles from our own program alumni. As always, upcoming events and announcements round us out for the week.
Ebola in Uganda, US on Alert
The Biden administration announced this week that all travelers entering the United States from Uganda will be redirected to airports where they can be screened for Ebola virus disease (EVD). Physicians were also warned to be on the lookout for potential cases entering the country. According to The New York Times, “The director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ordered the airport screenings, and the State Department issued an alert saying the measures would apply to all passengers, including U.S. citizens… Screenings were expected to begin on Thursday for some passengers, but the travel restrictions will not go into effect until next week, according to an official familiar with the plan, who stressed that both the restrictions and the alert to doctors were issued as precautions.”
Passengers entering the US from Uganda will be redirected to New York City’s John F. Kennedy International Airport, New Jersey’s Newark Liberty International Airport, Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, and Dulles International Airport near Washington, D.C. According to the administration, 62% of passengers entering the country from Uganda already arrive through these airports. They will undergo temperature checks and complete questionnaires before continuing to their final destinations.
According to the advisory, “On September 20, 2022, the Ministry of Health of Uganda officially declared an outbreak of EVD due to Sudan virus (species Sudan ebolavirus)in Mubende District, Central Uganda.”
“The first confirmed case of EVD was a 25-year-old man who lived in Mubende District and quickly identified as a suspect case of viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF) and isolated in the Mubende Regional Referral Hospital. Blood collected from this patient tested positive for Sudan virus by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) on September 19, 2022, at the Uganda Virus Research Institute (UVRI). The patient died the same day, and a supervised burial was performed by trained staff wearing proper personal protective equipment (PPE). Further investigation into this case revealed a cluster of unexplained deaths occurring in the community during the previous month. As of October 6, 2022, a total of 44 confirmed cases, 10 confirmed deaths, and 20 probable deaths of EVD have been identified in Uganda.”
Much of this is reminiscent of the 2014-2016 outbreak, during which the US reported the first case outside Africa in a Liberian national who traveled to Dallas through four different airports without being stopped. At the time, NPR explained that “Ebola symptoms can lay dormant for two to 21 days, and during that time, the disease wouldn’t show up on a blood test, let alone a thermometer. There was no way to know that this particular passenger was at risk. The good news, says Thomas Frieden, director of the CDC: “Ebola doesn’t spread before someone gets sick, and he didn’t get sick till four days after he got off the airplane. So we do not believe there is any risk to anyone who was on the flight at that time.” Fever is one of the first symptoms to appear, so for now, thermometers remain a good way of catching infected travelers.”
The Liberian patient, Thomas Eric Duncan, died on the morning of October 8 at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, a little over two weeks after he arrived in the US from West Africa. Two nurses who treated him, Nina Pham and Amber Vinson, were infected too, though they both later recovered. The hospital was later criticized in an independent report detailing miscommunication, poor information handling, and a lack of focus on patient safety that contributed to Duncan’s initial misdiagnosis and the nurses’ exposure. Later in October 2014, a medical aid worker who had volunteered in Guinea was hospitalized in New York City with suspected EVD, which was later confirmed by CDC. This patient also later recovered. An additional seven others were treated in the US after they were exposed and became ill while in West Africa, the majority of whom were medical workers. They were transported to the US on chartered aircraft. All but one recovered.
According to CDC, “The 2014-2016 Ebola epidemic was the first and largest epidemic of its kind, with widespread urban transmission and a massive death count of more than 11,300 people in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. The epidemic took a devastating toll on the people of West Africa. Ending it took an extraordinary international effort in which the U.S. government played a major role.”
However, unlike this and other recent outbreaks, the cases in Uganda are of the Ebola Sudan strain. The WHO explains of this strain that “According to the International Classification of Disease for filoviruses (ICD-11) released in May 2019, Ebola disease is now sub-categorized depending on the causative virus. Outbreaks of Ebola disease caused by Sudan virus are named Sudan Virus Disease (SVD) outbreaks. Prior to May 2019 all viruses causing Ebola disease were grouped together. Based on the results of laboratory tests, this outbreak is caused by Sudan virus.”
“Sudan virus disease is a severe, often fatal illness affecting humans. Sudan virus was first reported in southern Sudan in June 1976, since then the virus has emerged periodically and up to now, seven outbreaks caused by SUDV have been reported, four in Uganda and three in Sudan. The estimated case fatality ratios of SVD have varied from 41% to 100% in past outbreaks.”
The WHO also explains that “The diagnosis of SVD can be difficult, as early nonspecific manifestation of the disease may mimic other infectious diseases such as malaria, typhoid fever and meningitis. Confirmation is made using numerous diagnostic methods including RT-PCR. Supportive care – rehydration with oral or intravenous fluids – and treatment of specific symptoms improve survival.”
Importantly, in contrast to the Zaire strain, there are no licensed vaccines or therapeutics for this strain of Ebola. The CDC’s HAN advisory explains that “This is the fifth outbreak of EVD caused by Sudan virus in Uganda since 2000. The current outbreak is in the same area as Uganda’s most recent EVD outbreak caused by Sudan virus, which occurred in 2012. During the 2012 outbreak, limited secondary transmission was reported, and the outbreak was effectively contained.”
In 1921, FDR contracted poliomyelitis at 39 years old, becoming seriously ill before eventually recovering, though he remained paralyze from the waist down for the rest of his life. He was by no means unique-the early 20th century saw thousands upon thousands of Americans infected with the virus. The disease left an average of 35,000 Americans disabled annually throughout the 1940s. In just 1952 alone, 60,000 American children were infected; thousands were left paralyzed while over 3,000 died. Late summer was commonly known as “polio season” back then. However, as the years went on, the United States began vaccinating for this disease widely, ridding the country of wild cases by 1979. In the last 50 years, polio has increasingly come to feel for many in the US like a thing of the past and a problem only for far away countries where it is endemic.
Today, however, New York is grappling with its first polio case since 1990 (you know…as it also tries to juggle monkeypox, COVID-19, and the threat of imported Ebola cases). In July this year, a young man reported to an ER in a New York City suburb with weakness in his lower legs, having experienced a fever, stiff neck, and other symptoms for several days prior. This person is unvaccinated for polio, and it is believed his samples appear related to those from countries that use oral polio vaccine. While one case of vaccine-derived polio would be shocking enough in the US today, it gets worse. Wastewater surveillance in New York State has detected the virus in Rockland County (where the case was diagnosed this summer), Orange and Sullivan Counties, and, as of late last month, Nassau County on Long Island. It has also been detected in New York City itself. The AP explains of the detection in Nassau County that “The sample is genetically linked to the polio case from Rockland and provides further evidence of expanding community spread, state health officials said.”
“On polio, we simply cannot roll the dice,” state Health Commissioner Dr. Mary T. Bassett said in a prepared statement. “If you or your child are unvaccinated or not up to date with vaccinations, the risk of paralytic disease is real. I urge New Yorkers to not accept any risk at all.”
While New York Governor Kathy Hochul has declared a disaster to increase resources allocated to her state’s effort to contain polio, this is likely part of a much larger problem. While 92.5% of children in the US have received three or more doses of the polio vaccine by the age of two, overall rates are declining nationally. For example, in Rockland County, NY, just 60% of residents were vaccinated for polio by August 1 of this year. CDC’s data shows that the national childhood vaccination rate for US kindergarteners declined 1% between 2019 and 2021, from 95% to 94%. While 1% may seem small, this means that about 211,000 kindergarteners in the US did not have all required vaccines in 2021, up from about 201,000 in 2019. This was even with enrollment in 2021 down 10% total. It is no small matter.
The pandemic has contributed to declining vaccination rates, particularly earlier on as people shied away from visiting their doctors for routine and preventative care. WHO announced earlier this year that about 25 million infants missed lifesaving vaccines in 2021 primarily because of disruptions caused by COVID-19. However, experts also worry that vaccine hesitancy is driving this and that it may lead to a future resurgence of previously controlled diseases like polio, pertussis, and measles. In the case of polio, large numbers of paralytic cases are unlikely, even if large numbers of unvaccinated people catch the disease. However, this is a very much vaccine preventable disease, making this problem particularly frustrating.
While this issue in the US is a concerning set-back, global eradication and containment efforts continue. Today, two of three strains of wild poliovirus have been eradicated globally. As a result, WHO is working with members states to help reduce the number of countries holding samples of polioviruses to a minimum and helping destroy unnecessary stocks. The WHO’s Global Polio Eradication Initiative recently released an update on Canada’s efforts to improve safeguards for work with poliovirus, explaining “As one of 25 countries retaining the eradicated type 2 poliovirus strain, Canada is putting in place the necessary safeguards to minimize this risk. In fact, the country is the first to have one of its facilities move to the second stage of WHO’s Containment Certification Scheme, through receiving an ‘Interim Certificate of Containment’, or ICC.”
“There are three stages of containment certification and ICC is the second,” said Liliane Boualam, WHO containment technical officer and co-chair of the GPEI’s Containment Management Group. “Effectively, this means the facility in question has been audited against WHO containment guidance by its National Authority for Containment, and has met a certain threshold of containment requirements. The validity of the ICC is limited to three years and the facility has two options: to either address any non-conformities identified through the audit, so as to be compliant with WHO containment guidance (GAP), or to decommission the facility and destroy or transfer virus materials to another (facility) undergoing certification within those three years,” she added. “WHO and GPEI commend Canada and its facility for being the first to achieve ICC status, and we look forward to their next steps, and progress by other countries retaining (polio)virus,” she said.”
“We are very pleased to have this Canadian facility advance to the next step in the containment certification process,” said Andréanne Bonhomme, Director, Biosafety and Biocontainment Operations at the Public Health Agency of Canada, and National Authority for Containment chair. “Canada appreciates the responsibility that comes with the ongoing handling and storage of poliovirus, and is committed to ensuring safe and secure containment of these viruses as essential functions continue,” she added.”
The piece continued by explaining hurdles in sticking to the international schedule: “Containment of type 2 poliovirus came into effect in 2016, following the declaration of its eradication in 2015. In 2018, WHO Member States recognizing the importance of the work, committed to acceleration of containment action globally. Significant advances have been made however many countries are behind on implementation timelines*. In part, the pandemic complicated matters, diverting resources away from containment and slowing implementation.”
“COVID-19 certainly hindered poliovirus containment efforts,” said Professor David Salisbury, chair of the Global Commission for the Certification of Eradication of Poliomyelitis and final signatory for containment certification certificates. “Encouragingly, we have seen improvements since individual country situations have stabilized, but progress is considerably behind schedule and we need to reprioritize this important work,” he added. “The goal is to have all facilities retaining polioviruses to have achieved full containment certification by 2026 and this means a great amount of work, and indeed much catching-up, needs to take place now,” he added.
Tech Wars: Transforming U.S. Technology Development
Dr. Daniel Gerstein (a GMU Biodefense PhD alumni) recently published his latest book, Tech Wars. “Tech Wars offers a narrative to describe the technology competition being waged throughout the world today and offers some thoughts on how the U.S. must adapt to be successful in this rapidly evolving, technology rich environment. Early in the book, the question of whether we will characterize this as a competition, conflict, or war was considered. In the end, I have chosen to depict it as a tech war to signify the magnitude and urgency of the issue at hand.”
“Today, the U.S. is not prepared for waging this war. Absent fundamental changes, our current science and technology advantages will continue to erode. To respond to this urgency, new strategies, organizational changes and resource allocations to our research and development (R&D) enterprise will be required to better posture us to take advantage of the opportunities and respond to the challenges that are on the horizon. Tech Wars provides recommendations for focused approaches to research, development, and innovation to promote U.S. economic prosperity and national security well into the latter decades of the 21st century.” You can order a copy here.
Understanding Cyber-Warfare: Politics, Policy and Strategy
Drs. Christ Whyte (GMU Political Science PhD, 2017) and Brian Mazanec (GMU Biodefense PhD, 2014) have updated their popular textbook on cyber conflict, Understanding Cyber-Warfare: Politics, Policy and Strategy; Routledge will be publishing the second edition in early 2023. As with the first edition, the textbook offers an accessible introduction to the historical, technical, and strategic context of global cyber conflict. The 2nd edition has been revised and updated throughout, with three new chapters. Whyte and Mazanec’s book has received praise from senior leaders, with General Michael V. Hayden, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency, saying “‘This book is a great contribution to the cyber canon and offers a comprehensive reference for both students and policymakers. The authors cover down on the many dynamic facets of cyber conflict, providing a strong foundation for anyone interested in this critical aspect of international relations.” James R. Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence also offered praise, calling the book “An authoritative tutorial on the arcane complexities of cyber warfare. This edition updates a previous version and makes the book more contemporary. It is a must-read for those who are serious about mastering this unique medium of combat, in all its dimensions.” You can preorder a copy here.
“The New Science that Could Help Spot the Next Pandemic Before It Begins”
Dr. Yong-bee Lim (yet another Biodefense PhD alumni!) recently published his latest article as an Editorial Fellow with The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. In it he discusses new and developing ways to monitor emerging infectious disease risks and the benefits of threat-agnostic biodefense. He writes, “As the world continues to face biological event after biological event, significant action must be taken to curtail the worst potential outcomes. New and evolving technologies leveraged towards pathogen-agnostic approaches to biodefense and public health may offer new ways to detect, characterize, and mitigate the risks associated with the emergence of novel pathogens in a wide variety of settings, from farm fields and cities to overseas military bases and hospitals. Some useful technologies and ideas—like pathogen agnostic biodefense–are still in their infancy, others, like whole-genome sequencing remain costly and out of reach, especially in poorer countries.”
“What’s Old Is New Again: Cold War Lessons for Countering Disinformation”
In this article for the Texas National Security Review, Calder Walton discusses how modern strategies to combat disinformation can be informed by history, focusing on the KGB’s targeting of race relations at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles and KGB claims that the US engineered the human immunodeficiency virus. He writes “This paper makes three principal arguments. First, applied history is a valuable field of public policy research, as demonstrated by the history of intelligence, disinformation, and international security. Second, the history of Soviet disinformation targeting U.S. domestic racial protests and Washington’s use of bioweapons to cause pandemics shows how and why hostile foreign states use disinformation to attack liberal democracies. Contrary to past and present claims about foreign malign “hidden hands” in U.S. domestic affairs, in fact the Soviet Union’s disinformation strategy, and its impact, were limited: It targeted and amplified existing divisions within American society, doing nothing more than magnifying them. Third, the U.S. government devised policies for countering Soviet disinformation about race and pandemics that are still applicable, even in today’s digital information landscape, where cyber interconnectivity and the prevalence of social media mean that citizens and policymakers drink from a daily firehouse of information. Although the digital revolution has offered unprecedented capabilities through which states can disseminate disinformation, the history of what came before is still relevant and applicable. In fact, it is impossible to understand contemporary foreign state disinformation strategies without appreciating their past. This will become an increasingly important subject as societies become more interconnected this century. The digitized 21st century will witness “infodemic” events, producing so much information that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for audiences to distinguish facts from state-sponsored lies.”
“Fear and Loathing in Moscow: The Russian Biological Weapons Program in 2022”
In this piece for the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dr. Robert Petersen, an analyst at Denmark’s Centre for Biosecurity and Biopreparedness, offers a comprehensive overview of the history of the Soviet and Russian BW threat, modern Russian biodefense concerns, and the probable state of Russian BW research and development today. He writes, “The Russian accusations and the fears they evoked raise an important question: What is the status of Russia’s own biological weapons program? The Russian government inherited a substantial part of the Soviet biological weapons program following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and what happened to this large program is a mystery. According to the US State Department, the Russian government continues to have a biological weapons program, and the US government did impose sanctions on several Russian military-biological facilities in 2021.”
He continues with, “Although Russia is highly secretive with regard to its biological research enterprise, and there is no definitive proof of an extant bioweapons program, the public record strongly suggests that Russia has maintained and modernized the surviving parts of the Soviet biological weapons program. For instance, the Russian government repeatedly admitted and then, in subsequent years, repeatedly denied inheriting a large part of the Soviet biological weapons program. Also, there are public signs of continuing research into biological weapons (including non-lethal biological weapons) at several locations in Russia. Meanwhile, discussion and policy decisions regarding so-called genetic weapons demonstrate the Russian leadership’s obsession with the idea of a new generation of advanced bioweapons.”
Breathless: The Scientific Race to Defeat a Deadly Virus
David Quammen is back in his latest book, Breathless, which covers the emergence of COVID-19. Erin Garcia de Jesús explains in her review that “The book is a portrait of the virus — SARS-CoV-2’s early days in China, how decades of science helped researchers craft effective vaccines within a year, the arrival of highly mutated variants. It’s not about the societal upheaval or the public health failures (and successes). While Quammen acknowledges the importance of those aspects of the pandemic, he chooses to focus on the “firehose” of scientific studies — both good and bad — that drove our understanding of COVID-19.”
“Protecting U.S. Technological Advantage”
The National Academies recently released this free eBook discussing the importance of technology innovation and leadership for US national security-“U.S. leadership in technology innovation is central to our nation’s interests, including its security, economic prosperity, and quality of life. Our nation has created a science and technology ecosystem that fosters innovation, risk taking, and the discovery of new ideas that lead to new technologies through robust collaborations across and within academia, industry, and government, and our research and development enterprise has attracted the best and brightest scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs from around the world. The quality and openness of our research enterprise have been the basis of our global leadership in technological innovation, which has brought enormous advantages to our national interests.”
“In today’s rapidly changing landscapes of technology and competition, however, the assumption that the United States will continue to hold a dominant competitive position by depending primarily on its historical approach of identifying specific and narrow technology areas requiring controls or restrictions is not valid. Further challenging that approach is the proliferation of highly integrated and globally shared platforms that power and enable most modern technology applications.”
“To review the protection of technologies that have strategic importance for national security in an era of openness and competition, Protecting U.S. Technological Advantage considers policies and practices related to the production and commercialization of research in domains critical to national security. This report makes recommendations for changes to technology protection policies and practices that reflect the current realities of how technologies are developed and incorporated into new products and processes.”
“Visualizing Potential Pathogen Early Warning for Force Health Protection and Biothreat Response”
“A layered biosurveillance strategy is an essential component of a biodefense strategy for detecting and deterring infectious disease cases and other biological threats. The Council on Strategic Risks has detailed key elements of a biosurveillance network and their interoperability in providing force health protection on a military installation. Additionally, we explore the workflow of an infectious disease outbreak and how the biosurveillance network would be put into practice across the U.S. government.”
“Dr. Natasha Bajema of the Converging Risks Lab and Brian G. Payne of aTON created these illustrations as a unique visual tool for understanding the scope of equipment, strategy, and people necessary for a successful biosurveillance network.” Learn more and access the illustrations here.
“Anticipating Rare Events of Major Significance”
This abbreviated proceedings of a workshop is available from the National Academies. It explains that “The Intelligence Community Studies Board of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a 1- day classified workshop on March 2, 2022, to discuss the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s (DTRA’s) methodologies and rare event anticipatory models and share insights from the unclassified Workshop on Anticipating Rare Events of Major Significance held on December 17 and 21, 2021. A major goal of both workshops was to examine the methodologies and experiences of other disciplines in dealing with significant rare events with a view to aiding DTRA in examining and further developing its own methodologies to address rare events of particular concern to that agency. In accordance with procedures established by the National Academies for classified activities, this abbreviated version is an unclassified summary of a classified Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief.”
“Long-Term Impacts of COVID-19 on the Future Academic Careers of Women in STEM”
The National Academies also recently released this proceedings of a workshop-“On March 23-24, 2022, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held a virtual workshop to explore the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the future careers of women in STEM. Workshop participants represented multiple sectors (i.e., higher education, government, and non-profit) as well as various career paths and stages (e.g., assistant, associate, and full professors; graduate students; program officers; directors; and policy advisors). The two-day workshop convened experts and leaders to outline a national research agenda that ensures academic institutions and federal agencies are able to monitor and mitigate the long-term negative impacts of the pandemic on the career trajectories, job stability, and leadership roles of women – especially women of color — in STEM. This publication highlights the presentation and discussion of the workshop.”
“The Influenza Imperative: An Urgent Need to Leverage Lessons from COVID-19 to Prepare for a Global Response to Seasonal and Pandemic Influenza”
The National Academy of Medicine recently released this paper discussing the findings of the Advancing Pandemic and Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Preparedness and Response in 2020 initiative’s workshop. The authors explain the aims of it, writing “The National Academy of Medicine convened an initiative on Advancing Pandemic and Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Preparedness and Response in 2020 to collect, understand, and leverage lessons learned from COVID-19 to ensure more robust and nimble preparedness for pandemic and seasonal influenza in the future (NAM, n.d.). By the end of 2021, the Initiative convened a three-day global workshop; and produced a workshop summary and four consensus studies focused on vaccine research and development, globally resilient supply chains, public health interventions, and global coordination and financing (NAM, 2022; NASEM and NAM, 2022a; NASEM and NAM, 2022b; NASEM and NAM, 2022c; NASEM and NAM, 2022d; NAM 2021). This manuscript aims to briefly summarize the four consensus studies, identify areas of focus among the 96 recommendations presented in the studies, and prioritize a small number of these recommendations for immediate action. This manuscript is authored by members of the Initiative’s international committee, which oversaw all of the activities outlined above.”
“Hazardous and Toxic Chemicals on the Move: Under-regulated, Vulnerable, and Dangerous”
Cupitt et al. recently authored an explainer for the Stimson Center discussing security challenges posed by the growing global chemical trade and the threat of chemical terrorism. They explain that “Whether they are fatal events, ecological disasters, or “normal accidents”, the mishandling of hazardous substances during the transport stage poses a serious and perpetual risk to the international community. This is especially true when considering the danger of intentional misuse rather than accidental mishandling.” They offer seven recommendations for states to strengthen transportation security and supply chain verification as well.
“Biological Weapon Monitoring in Iraq”
This new issue of “Historical Notes” is authored by Dr. Gabriele Kraatz-Wadsack, a former weapons inspector with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) in Iraq and later Chief of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Branch – UN Office for Disarmament Affairs. In it, “she describes the only instance of international monitoring in the biological weapons (BW) area. It draws on her first-hand experience to launch and manage biological ongoing monitoring in Iraq from 1995 through 1998 both within the country and from UNSCOM Headquarters.” She explains that “The monitoring and verification experience in Iraq illustrates that in-country verification, especially through on-site inspections could generate more timely and more accurate information than from any other source and could also serve as the strongest deterrent to proscribed activities. Unannounced on-site inspections by knowledgeable inspectors were the most powerful tool that was greatly reinforced by the deployment of resident teams inside Iraq. Such inspections credibly increased the probability of timely detection of proscribed activities at any site in Iraq. The success was ultimately due to the commitment, knowledge, skills and dedication of the people who carried out inspection and monitoring activities.”
“Dual-Use Research Needs International Oversight”
In this Nature Correspondence piece, Whitby et al. discuss current challenges and opportunities to better address DURC oversight. They write, “An international system of oversight for dual-use research could usefully be introduced. It could be incorporated, for instance, into the Tianjin Biosecurity Guidelines for Codes of Conduct for Scientists, to be considered at the upcoming Ninth Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention (see L. Wang et al. J. Biosaf. Biosecurity 3, 82–83; 2021). The post-pandemic period offers a timely opportunity to raise awareness of dual-use research and for training personnel in ethical reviewing.”
“Needed: Stricter Screening of Gene Synthesis Orders, Customers”
Dr. Gigi Gronvall discusses in this opinion piece for STAT News California’s new law requiring California State University to “…develop systemwide guidance for buying gene synthesis products from companies that screen their orders to minimize the risk of misuse, and requests that the entire University of California system do the same.” She explains that “This will create a competitive advantage for companies that take biosecurity seriously. Widespread screening will make it more difficult for potential nefarious actors to access genetic material that could be used to construct pathogenic viruses, including smallpox, Ebola, or influenza, so this is an important step for biosecurity.” She concludes “The U.S. government and other governments must quickly adopt similar common-sense regulations to normalize the screening process and prevent gene synthesis products from falling into the wrong hands.”
“The Next Pandemic is Right Around the Corner: Let’s Keep It There”
In this opinion piece, Drs. Andre M. Goffinet, Helen E. Mundler, Sebastien Viret, and Roland Wiesendanger propose the creation of a United Nations International Pandemic Pathogens Agency. They write “It is our collective responsibility to ensure that technology is applied for the common good. To cite the most celebrated case, research in nuclear physics led to the discovery of nuclear fission and the development of nuclear reactors, but also to nuclear weapons. Nuclear technology is burdened with deep and obvious moral and ethical issues that led the United Nations to create the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
“The hugely disruptive Covid19 pandemic should trigger an analogous response addressing the risks inherent to research on enhanced pathogens with pandemic potential—hereinafter ePPP.”
“We propose the creation by the UN of an International Pandemic Pathogen Agency, the IPPA…”
“Navigating the Paradox of the Silent Pandemic”
Dr. Alexander Ghionis, a Research Fellow in Chemical and Biological Security at the University of Sussex’s Science Policy Research Unit, recently authored this opinion piece discussing the AMR’s growing threat and the need to improve antibiotic research in addition to stewardship culture. He writes, “Antimicrobial drugs, including antibiotics, are the backbone of modern medicine. They are a primary treatment for a spectrum of ailments, from infected wounds to chest infections, sexually transmitted infections to pneumonia. They underpin treatments for people with compromised immune systems, for example those living with HIV or undergoing cancer treatments. Antibiotics have captured the public’s imagination as a fix-all drug.”
“Primate Hemorrhagic Fever-Causing Arteriviruses are Poised for Spillover to Humans”
In this new Cell article, Warren et al. discuss how SHFV replication in human cells suggests potential for zoonotic transmission. Their summary explains that “Simian arteriviruses are endemic in some African primates and can cause fatal hemorrhagic fevers when they cross into primate hosts of new species. We find that CD163 acts as an intracellular receptor for simian hemorrhagic fever virus (SHFV; a simian arterivirus), a rare mode of virus entry that is shared with other hemorrhagic fever-causing viruses (e.g., Ebola and Lassa viruses). Further, SHFV enters and replicates in human monocytes, indicating full functionality of all of the human cellular proteins required for viral replication. Thus, simian arteriviruses in nature may not require major adaptations to the human host. Given that at least three distinct simian arteriviruses have caused fatal infections in captive macaques after host-switching, and that humans are immunologically naive to this family of viruses, development of serology tests for human surveillance should be a priority.”
“An Updated Review of the Scientific Literature on the Origin of SARS-CoV-2”
Dr. Jose Domingo’s updated lit review on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 is now available as a free PMC article here. Its abstract reads “More than two and a half years have already passed since the first case of COVID-19 was officially reported (December 2019), as well as more than two years since the WHO declared the current pandemic (March 2020). During these months, the advances on the knowledge of the COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus responsible of the infection, have been very significant. However, there are still some weak points on that knowledge, being the origin of SARS-CoV-2 one of the most notorious. One year ago, I published a review focused on what we knew and what we need to know about the origin of that coronavirus, a key point for the prevention of potential future pandemics of a similar nature. The analysis of the available publications until July 2021 did not allow drawing definitive conclusions on the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Given the great importance of that issue, the present review was aimed at updating the scientific information on that origin. Unfortunately, there have not been significant advances on that topic, remaining basically the same two hypotheses on it. One of them is the zoonotic origin of SARS-CoV-2, while the second one is the possible leak of this coronavirus from a laboratory. Most recent papers do not include observational or experimental studies, being discussions and positions on these two main hypotheses. Based on the information here reviewed, there is not yet a definitive and well demonstrated conclusion on the origin of SARS-CoV-2.”
What We’re Listening To 🎧
Public Health On Call-#527: The White House’s National Action Plan On Long COVID
From Johns Hopkins: “The Biden administration’s action plan for responding to long COVID is a good start, but much more is required to truly address the impacts of this “mass disabling event” on health, safety, and the economy. Journalist Ryan Prior and inaugural White House Director for Disability Policy Kim Knackstedt talk with Stephanie Desmon about what is included in the nation’s long COVID plan, what was left out, and how the plan could pave the way for responding to other chronic illnesses.” Listen here.
The John Batchelor Show-#Ukraine: The Other Kinds of #WMD. Andrea Stricker, FDD
Listen to John Batchelor discuss WMD threats and Russia’s war in Ukraine with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’ Andrea Stricker, research fellow and deputy director of the nonproliferation and biodefense program at FDD. Stricker also recently authored a policy brief, “U.S. Must Show Russia There is No Impunity for Chemical Weapons Use,” alongside FDD’s Anthony Ruggiero.
Interested in Studying Biodefense? Come to Our Information Session!
Are you a Pandora Report reader who just can’t get enough? Consider applying to the Schar School’s Biodefense Program, which offers several graduate certificates, an MS in Biodefense (both in-person and online), and a PhD in Biodefense if you’re really into this. On October 11 at 12 pm ET you can join us virtually to learn more about admissions for the MS and graduate certificates, including info on the application process, student experiences, and graduate outcomes. Register here.
Competing Equities: Biorisk and Global Health
Join TEXGHS for their free October lecture featuring Dr. Taylor Winkelman-Cagle on October 11 at 1 pm CDT. “Biological events have far-reaching impacts that extend beyond borders and defy human efforts at containment. Whether a biological event is a spillover from land use change or an accidental release from a lab, every nation on Earth has equities in the bio-related activities of everyone else. How do we balance these? How do we set the table, so to speak?”
“The focus of this talk will be the intersection of international politics and global health, with an eye to practical, pragmatic solutions and an honest evaluation of the obstacles and barriers that exist (and why some need to remain).” Learn more and register here.
Disinformation: An Emerging War Weapon
“Hosted by the National Defense University Foundation and Moderated by President and CEO, James Schmeling, join us for this interactive virtual discussion. Brief Talk Description: Explore how Russia, China and other entities use misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation as weapons of war and their impact on global security and American democracy.” This online webinar will be hosted on October 20 at 12 pm EST. Register here.
Reflections on Science Communication & Human Rights Amid Public Health Emergencies
“On October 20 (10:30-11:30 am ET), join Dr. Bina Venkataraman, Editor-at-Large for The Boston Globe, and Dr. Chris Beyrer, Director of Duke University’s Global Health Institute, for a virtual discussion of science communication during public health emergencies, the role of public health researchers and journalists in advancing human rights, and emerging lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.”
“The conversation will be moderated by Prof. Helle Porsdam, Professor of Law and Humanities and UNESCO Chair in Cultural Rights, Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen.” Register here.
Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing
The Third International Summit on Human Genome Editing will take place March 6-8, 2023, at the Francis Crick Institute, London, UK. “Building on previous events held in Washington, DC (2015) and Hong Kong (2018), this Summit will continue the important dialogue around human genome editing. It will facilitate a global discussion on somatic and germline genome editing, including developments in clinical trials and genome editing tools such as CRISPR/Cas9. Earlier this year a three-part series of online events Looking Ahead to the Third Human Genome Editing Summit discussed some of the key topics of the meeting. The three-day summit is being organised by the Royal Society, the UK Academy of Medical Sciences, the US National Academies of Sciences and Medicine and The World Academy of Sciences.”
“Find out more about the Summit’s Planning Committee, chaired by Professor Robin Lovell-Badge FRS FMedSci. Further information about the Summit agenda will be released soon, and registration to attend the event in person and online is now open.”
Dr. Leonard Cole Dead at 89
“NTI Announces Dr. Piers Millett as Inaugural Executive Director of New International Biosecurity Organization, IBBIS”
From the Nuclear Threat Initiative: “NTI is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Piers Millett as the founding executive director of the International Biosecurity and Biosafety Initiative for Science (IBBIS), a new organization that will work collaboratively with global partners to strengthen biosecurity norms and develop innovative tools to uphold them…“Our vision for IBBIS is to build a world in which bioscience can flourish safely and responsibly,” said NTI Co-Chair and CEO Ernest J. Moniz. “Piers brings tremendous credibility and expertise to help stand up this vitally important new organization at a time when biological risks are growing.” Read more here.
“Engineering Biology for Climate and Sustainability: A Research Roadmap for a Cleaner Future” Goes Live
The Engineering Biology Research Consortium recently launched its latest roadmap, “Engineering Biology for Climate and Sustainability: A Research Roadmap for a Cleaner Future.” They explain “Engineering Biology for Climate & Sustainability: A Research Roadmap for a Cleaner Future is a critical assessment of opportunities for engineering biology to contribute to tackling the climate crisis and long-term sustainability of products and solutions for health and well-being of Earth and its inhabitants. This roadmap identifies novel approaches, objectives, and aims for engineering biology research in climate change mitigation and adaptation that can help to lower greenhouse gases, reduce and remove pollution, and promote biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. This roadmap also identifies opportunities for engineering biology-enabled, sustainable replacements and alternatives in the food and agriculture sector, transportation and energy sectors, and for materials and industrial processes. The roadmap’s opportunities and objectives are laid out as short-, medium-, and long-term milestones, to address the challenges of climate change and sustainability with both urgency and persistent ambition and vision for the development and translation of engineering biology tools to technologies and products for the current and next-generation bioeconomy.”