Happy New Year! This week covers reports of over 450 chemical attacks by Russia since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the fifth anniversary of DHS’ CWMD Office, and several recent publications.
Ukraine Reports Hundreds of Chemical Attacks by Russia Since Start of Invasion
In late December, the Kyiv Post published an article explaining a post from Ukraine’s Armed Forces Support Forces Command, which “claims that Russian troops have conducted 465 chemical attacks in Ukraine since the initiation of the full-scale invasion, with over 80 such attacks in December 2023, including one grenade containing a new, unknown chemical agent…The command notes an escalating trend in the use of such weapons by Russian forces, highlighting eight chemical attacks on Dec. 19 alone.”
The article continues, explaining “The commonly used weapons include grenades like K-51, RGR, and Drofa-PM gas hand grenades dropped from unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Additionally, improvised explosive devices equipped with irritant substances and artillery shelling containing chemically dangerous substances are being employed.”
“The report mentions that 28 cases involving dangerous chemicals were documented and forwarded for investigative actions as part of criminal proceedings by groups of radiation, chemical, and biological intelligence from the military units of the Support Forces Command, working in collaboration with the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU).”
In case you missed it: Last summer, the Royal United Services Institute published an article on this topic, exploring the reported limited use of riot control agents and broader deployment of CW by Russia could mean in this war. The piece offers insight into Russia’s potential ogic in using these kinds of weapons in Ukraine, making it helpful in understanding this latest reporting.
DHS Celebrates Five Years of the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office
In late December, the Department of Homeland Security celebrated the fifth anniversary of the founding of the Countering WMD Office. In an email update from the Department, Assistant Secretary for the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, Mary Ellen Callahan, was quoted saying “The threat of weapons of mass destruction terrorism is real. Five years ago, in the face of a dynamic, evolving threat environment, legislators recognized that the U.S. needed a more holistic approach to countering chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats to the Homeland…By authorizing CWMD, the legislators enabled us to enhance and coordinate the chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear detection efforts of federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to improve preparedness and response capabilities throughout the United States. We look forward to continuing this essential mission to protect the American people.”
The update further explained “Congress established the CWMD Office in 2018 to elevate, consolidate, and streamline DHS efforts to protect the Homeland from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats. CWMD serves as the DHS nexus for WMD and CBRN coordination, which includes providing direct financial and operational support nationwide to government and industry partners for full-time biological detection, illicit nuclear material detection, training, and exercises. Additionally, as part of the President’s Executive Order on AI signed in October 2023, President Biden tasked CWMD with helping to evaluate and mitigate the potential for AI to be used to develop WMDs, such as through AI-enabled misuse of synthetic nucleic acids to create biological weapons. The President directed the CWMD Office to evaluate the potential for AI to lower the barriers to entry for developing WMD and to develop a framework to evaluate and stress test synthetic-nucleic acid screening, creating a standardized set of expectations for third parties that audit AI systems to prevent the risk of abuse and proliferation by malicious actors.”
Defense Dossier Issue 38: “Pandemic Preparedness and Biodefense”
The American Foreign Policy Council’s December Defense Dossier is focused on biodefense and pandemic preparedness, featuring an article-“Parsing the Great Gain of Function Debate”-co-authored by Biodefense PhD Program alumni Yong-bee Lim and Saskia Popescu. It also includes other articles like “China’s Evolving Thinking About Biotechnology,” and “Understanding the Cyberbiosecurity Threat.” Read here.
“Virology-the Path Forward”
Rasmusen et al. recently published this commentary article in the Journal of Virology. They write in their abstract, “In the United States (US), biosafety and biosecurity oversight of research on viruses is being reappraised. Safety in virology research is paramount and oversight frameworks should be reviewed periodically. Changes should be made with care, however, to avoid impeding science that is essential for rapidly reducing and responding to pandemic threats as well as addressing more common challenges caused by infectious diseases. Decades of research uniquely positioned the US to be able to respond to the COVID-19 crisis with astounding speed, delivering life-saving vaccines within a year of identifying the virus. We should embolden and empower this strength, which is a vital part of protecting the health, economy, and security of US citizens. Herein, we offer our perspectives on priorities for revised rules governing virology research in the US.”
“Interpreting the Biological Weapons Convention – What Are “Necessary Measures” Under Article IV of the Convention?”
Sally Longworth recently published this report with the Swedish Defence Research Agency. She explains in her summary, “Article IV of the Biological Weapons Convention 1972 (BWC) requires States Parties to implement national implementation measures to prohibit and prevent the development, production, stockpiling, retention, acquisition, transfer, and use of biological agents, toxins and weapons in violation of the Convention. No definition of “national implementation measures” is included in the treaty, but there has been over 50 years of State practice in implementing this obligation, which can provide guidance on how States Parties interpret the obligations under Article IV. The Final Declarations agreed by consensus by States Parties at the Convention Review Conferences held every five years are particularly useful tools in understanding what measures are required and what, if any, development there has been in interpreting Article IV. Using legal methods to interpret international treaties, this memo first analyses the obligations set out in Article IV and then considers the interpretative value of the Final Declarations in relation to the BWC. It goes on to highlight a number of measures identified by the States Parties considered necessary in the implementation of the obligations contained in Article IV and important developments in what must be covered.”
“Vision, Needs, and Proposed Actions for Data for the Bioeconomy Initiative”
The National Science and Technology Council recently released this report from the Interagency Working Group on Data for the Bioeconomy. Its executive summary explains in part, “To realize a thriving bioeconomy, the Data Initiative identifies strategic investments and opportunities to leverage and build upon existing resources. The goal is to create an interwoven data fabric that connects data with the infrastructure and computational resources necessary to analyze, synthesize, and use those data for the widest audience. This vision depends on creation and adoption of community-driven standards, both for data and for repositories to enable interoperability and integration; training and education to build the bioeconomy data workforce of tomorrow; efforts to limit and mitigate security risks; and ongoing coordination to ensure efforts keep pace with transformations in data science, computing, biotechnology and biomanufacturing. While additional data are needed, government coordination and investment in infrastructure are also needed to make best use of the existing and anticipated data.”
Furthermore, in identifies seven Core Action areas the Data Initiative indicates requires “consistent whole-of-government coordination and investments”:
- Dedicated long-term funding mechanisms for data and computational resources and infrastructure;
- Standards to establish common best practices that foster and strengthen a shared U.S. bioeconomy data ecosystem;
- Biodata Catalog to identify extant data and metadata;
- Security practices and policies that secure the data landscape while supporting innovation;
- Workforce to drive U.S. leadership in the bioeconomy of the future;
- Strategically Targeted Areas for Rapid Transformation (START) to determine viability and impact and chart a course for larger investments; and
- Coordination of intergovernmental investments, efforts, and resources.
“FACT SHEET: Biden-Harris Administration Releases Global Health Security Partnerships Annual Progress Report Demonstrating Results from United States Investments”
The White House recently released this fact sheet along with the release of its Global Health Security Partnerships Annual Progress Report. The fact sheet explains in its introduction, “The Biden-Harris Administration continues to prioritize global health security as a critical component of national biodefense. The COVID-19 pandemic, as well as HIV/AIDS, Ebola, mpox and other outbreaks in recent years, has demonstrated the catastrophic impacts infectious diseases can have on health, economies, and societies, regardless of where they start. The United States partners with countries around the world to build stronger global health security capacity – the ability to prevent, detect, rapidly respond to, and recover from new and emerging public health threats and prevent their spread across borders. Partnering with countries to stop infectious disease threats at their source, including by strengthening equitable health systems in their own countries and across regions, effectively protects the health of Americans and people across the world.”
“Exploring Actions for Epidemic and Pandemic Preparedness”
The National Academies recently released this Proceedings of a Symposium-in Brief: “Investing in pandemic preparedness ahead of disease outbreaks can greatly reduce the toll of epidemics and pandemics when they occur. Although several tools exist for assessing pandemic preparedness at an epidemiological and operational level, less information and fewer approaches are available to guide the prioritization of preparedness investments at the country level. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine held an international, virtual symposium series in May and June 2023 to explore possible strategies for evidence-based prioritization of global health capabilities to prepare for future epidemics and pandemics. Speakers and participants discussed assessment tools for national action planning; country and organizational decision-making about funding priorities; effective approaches for disease surveillance and risk communication; governance structures that support robust and reliable systems for global health investments; and specific actions for tools and resource prioritization for preventing and preparing for future epidemics and pandemics. This publication summarizes the presentation and discussions of the symposium.”
“America Should Be More Like Operation Warp Speed”
Gary Hamel and Michele Zanini recently published this Ideas piece in The Atlantic focused on how OWS offers lessons for the rest of the government in achieving goals. They write in their introduction, “The U.S. government can achieve great things quickly when it has to. In November 2020, the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency-use authorization to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for COVID-19. Seven days later, a competing vaccine from Moderna was approved. The rollout to the public began a few weeks later. The desperate search for a vaccine had been orchestrated by Operation Warp Speed, an initiative announced by the Trump administration that May. Developing, testing, manufacturing, and deploying a new vaccine typically takes a decade or more. OWS, which accomplished the feat in months, belongs in the pantheon of U.S. innovation triumphs, along with the Manhattan Project and the Apollo moon-landing program. It’s a case study in how the U.S. government can solve complex, urgent problems, and it challenges the narrative that public institutions have lost their ability to dream big and move fast.”
“Why the World Needs Its Own Immune System”
Atul Gawande, USAID’s Assistant Administrator for Global Health, recently published this opinion piece in The New York Times. He writes in part, “This is now the pattern: one emergency after another, often overlapping, diverting focus away from longer-term public health goals. And there’s no sign of this letting up. Displacement and activities like deforestation have increased contact between humans and wildlife — and thus the incidence of animal diseases leaping to humans. (The Ebola virus, for example, has been linked to bats as a possible source of spread.) The risk of outbreak-causing laboratory accidents is a significant concern as labs proliferate and safety measures lag. On average, between 1979 and 2015, more than 80 laboratory-acquired infections were reported per year, several involving transmission beyond those initially infected, and underreporting is rife. The growing field of synthetic virology has simultaneously generated lifesaving new treatments (mRNA vaccines, for example) and made it easier for bad actors to turn infectious diseases into weapons of mass destruction.”
“But we can break the pattern. Longer-range investment in local preparedness for such events — in building what I think of as a global immune system — could reduce the threat these crises pose and even reduce dependence on foreign aid to weather them. As dangers rise, so can our capacity to get ahead of them. With the right strategy, we could use the mishaps, malefactors and shocks we face to strengthen our capacity to adapt. This is not about developing resilience (the ability to recover from crisis) or robustness (the ability to resist crisis). It is about developing what the writer Nassim Nicholas Taleb has called antifragility — the ability to become stronger from crisis.”
“The OPCW and Civil Society: Considerations on Relevant Themes and Issues”
Alexander Ghionis recently published this working paper for CBWNet. He explains in its executive summary, “This paper explores some key elements of the relationship between the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and civil society, with the specific and limited aim of supporting ongoing discussions being held within the OPCW regarding options and mechanisms to enhance that relationship. The paper is designed to be practical, providing readers from State Parties, the Technical Secretariat, civil society, and other stakeholders, with some initial perspectives, ideas, and considerations that could inform discussions.”
The paper addresses “The composition and focus of accredited civil society organisations (CSOs); How CSOs have engaged with the OPCW so far and what alternative modes of engagement may be beneficial; and, What foundational aspects can strengthen the relationship between the OPCW and civil society moving forward.”
“The Altered Nuclear Order in the Wake of the Russia-Ukraine War”
Rebecca Davis Gibbons, Stephen Herzog, Wilfred Wan, and Doreen Horschig recently published this research paper with the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. They explain in their executive summary: “On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded nonnuclear-armed Ukraine and leveraged threats with its nuclear arsenal as a “shield” to deter third-party intervention. The well-publicized horrors on the ground in Ukraine are, unfortunately, not the only consequences of Russia’s full-scale invasion of its neighbor. The war is having unmistakable effects on how governments, scholars, and the public think about nuclear arms. Not only has Moscow reintroduced the world to the often-unsavory realities of nuclear deterrence, but its suspension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and deratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) have been setbacks for arms control and disarmament. Meanwhile, vulnerable states around the globe may be further incentivized to develop nuclear weapons or seek protection from nuclear-armed patrons to avoid being invaded like Ukraine.”
“Given these changing geopolitical circumstances, how might the Russian war on Ukraine affect the global nuclear order? The authors in this publication conclude that the United States and the broader international community must now more seriously engage with alternatives to traditional arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament endeavors. Specifically, the authors discuss the increasing prominence of approaches such as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)—popularly known as the Nuclear Ban—and risk reduction measures. They assess whether these initiatives can have an impact in reducing nuclear dangers. Additionally, they examine temptations for states to pursue more forceful counterproliferation measures and describe the risks of doing so.”
NEW: “When Medicine Stops Saving Us: The Antimicrobial Resistance Crisis”
“Interim Dean Abel Valenzuela and the UCLA Division of Social Sciences present an exclusive screening of a new documentary from the team behind the award winning NETFLIX documentary, RESISTANCE. This genre-bending short film, HOLOBIOME, features the harrowing story of UCLA graduate Bradley Burnam’s personal encounter with a deadly superbug. Through a variety of creative elements, HOLOBIOME examines the need for innovation in AMR and questions the overall human relationship with infectious disease and the microbial world. The screening will be followed by an interdisciplinary panel discussing the looming AMR crisis through the lenses of sociology, public policy, industry, and public health.”
This event will be moderated by Biodefense PhD Program alumna Jomana Musmar. It will take place on January 22, at 5 pm PST. Learn more and register here.
NEW: AI Executive Order Report Card Reviewing the First 90 Days
“On October 30, 2023, the Biden Administration issued a call to action outlining a host of requirements and deliverables for U.S. government agencies on artificial intelligence. The executive order touched on a range of AI-relevant issues, including testing and evaluation of new AI systems, developing a healthy and capable U.S. AI workforce, and ensuring U.S. competitiveness in the years to come.”
“Join CSET researchers on January 31, 2024, for a discussion of what the U.S. Government has accomplished so far, what have we learned, and what’s left to do to complete the EO’s ambitious goals.”
This online event will begin at 12 pm EST. Learn more and register here.
International Conference, CBRNE Research & Innovation
“The last 40 years have demonstrated that both military and civilian populations could be exposed to highly hazardous CBRNE agents following conflicts, natural outbreaks and disasters, industrial incidents or terrorist attacks.”
“Worldwide, researchers, responders and industrial capacities have been commited to provide adapted response to these challenges.”
“Building on the success of the first 5 International Conferences « CBRNE Research and Innovation » which took place in Antibes (2015), Lyon (2017), Nantes (2019), on line (2021) and Lille (2022), we want to give you a new opportunity to build up or strengthen collaborative networks in Strabourg (March 19th – 21rst 2024).”
“The CBRNE R&I Conference is specifically devoted to scientific updates, responders’ feedbacks and expression of needs. It also includes workshops and demonstrations of innovative materials, technologies and procedures, according to the following themes: DETECTION – IDENTIFICATION, PROTECTION – DECONTAMINATION, MEDICAL COUNTERMEASURES, RISKS & CRISIS MANAGEMENT.”
“Looking forward to your proposals for communication and to welcoming you at Strasbourg in March 2024!”
Learn more here.
Registration for GHS 2024 Now Open
Registration is now open for the Global Health Security 2024 conference in Sydney, Australia. This iteration will take place 18-21 June, 2024. The call for abstracts is also still open. “The mission of the Global Health Security conference is to provide a forum where leaders, researchers, policy-makers, and representatives from government, international organisations, civil society, and private industry from around the world can engage with each other, review the latest research and policy innovations, and agree solutions for making the world safer and healthier. To that end, our mission is to help foster a genuinely multidisciplinary community of practice that is committed to working collaboratively to enhance global health security and eliminate disease, irrespective of its origin or source.”
Vote: 2023 Arms Control Person(s) of the Year Nominees
“Since 2007, the independent, nongovernmental Arms Control Association has nominated individuals and institutions that have, in the previous 12 months, advanced effective arms control, nonproliferation, and disarmament solutions and raised awareness of the threats posed by mass casualty weapons.”
“In a field that is often focused on grave threats and negative developments, the Arms Control Person(s) of the Year contest aims to highlight several positive initiatives—some at the grassroots level, some on the international scale—designed to advance disarmament, nuclear security, and international peace, security, and justice.”
“Voting will take place between Dec. 8, 2023, and Jan. 11, 2024. The results will be announced on Jan. 12, 2024. Follow the discussion on social media using the hashtag #ACPOY2023.”
Learn about the nominees and vote here.
The Pandora Report 