Violent Non-State Actors and COVID-19: Challenge or Opportunity?

By Stevie Kiesel, Biodefense PhD Student

While government bureaucracies are lumbering through their response to the COVID-19 pandemic, how are non-state criminal and terrorist organizations’ operations being impacted? Have lockdowns and physical distancing guidelines hindered their ability to recruit, radicalize, and plan and conduct operations, or are these historically flexible and adaptable organizations taking advantage of pandemic conditions? A May 26 Wilson Center event, “Violent Non-State Actors and COVID-19: Challenge or Opportunity?” shed some light on this question.

On the first panel, three experts discussed how transnational criminal organizations have adapted to current conditions. Dr. Duncan Wood, the Director of the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, described how cartels have responded to border shutdowns and supply chain issues. Partial border closures and increased police presence to enforce physical distancing orders have made it more difficult to (1) obtain necessary precursor chemicals for drugs like methamphetamine and (2) move drugs north and money south. Despite these disruptions, cartels have been flexible, shifting their transportation method and the drugs they are selling. Now, more shipments are arriving in the U.S. by sea, and fentanyl is becoming even more widely available in the U.S. because supply chain issues reduced the availability of heroin and methamphetamines but not fentanyl.

Eric Olson, a global fellow at the Wilson Center, highlighted an important trend that cartels as well as terrorist groups engage in whenever a state is weakened. In the absence of a state providing social services and security, violent non-state actors (VNSAs) have often stepped in to exploit that void. VNSAs as diverse as Hezbollah, Japanese organized crime network yakuza, Peruvian terrorist group Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path), and the Sinaloa cartel have throughout history provided resources to local communities in an effort to win hearts and minds and increase their influence in a territory. During the pandemic, VNSAs are poised to step in and provide resources and security if the state fails to do so. A botched pandemic response can also erode the legitimacy of the state, creating a vacuum that VNSAs could fill.

George Mason University’s Dr. Louise Shelley predicted that transnational criminal organizations will readily adapt to changes caused by the pandemic. Several characteristics of organized crime will facilitate this adaptation. Organized crime is generally a cash-heavy endeavor, which can be a huge advantage during a crisis. People and small businesses are suffering, and governments’ responses may not be adequate to help people keep their jobs and help small businesses stay afloat during lockdowns. Related to Eric Olson’s point about VNSAs filling vacuums left by state responses to the pandemic, Dr. Shelley argued that criminal organizations, rich in cash, could step in and provide relief to communities. This brings people and businesses under the thumb of the criminal organization, with effects that may not be felt immediately but that represent a fundamental shift of power to criminal organizations.

Dr. Shelley also noted that as transnational criminal organizations are cut off from their traditional supply chains, they will move to the cyber realm, and countries are not prepared to meet this threat. We have already seen a significant rise in child exploitation online as more traditional methods of human trafficking are impacted by lockdowns. The pandemic will also provide new criminal opportunities that can be facilitated online. For example, illicit medical supplies and pharmaceuticals that are newly in demand can easily be sold online, as long as supply chains remain intact. Additionally, there has been a rise in identity theft and other fraudulent activities aimed at stealing state resources intended to provide pandemic relief. The Washington state unemployment fund in particular has experienced a massive problem with identity theft, wherein identities of Washington state residents have been stolen and sold on the dark web. Criminals purchase these identities and use them to file for relief funds. Dr. Shelley argued that the U.S. remains vulnerable to cybercrime because of the decentralized nature of the government and a lack of coordination among relevant agencies.

During the second panel, Deputy Director of the Wilson Center’s Asia Program Michael Kugelman and Wilson Center Middle East Fellow Dr. Marina Ottaway discussed how VNSAs in the Middle East have been impacted by COVID-19. Michael Kugelman continued the conversation about non-state actors providing support to local communities in the absence of a strong state by discussing the Taliban’s activities during COVID-19. The pandemic, he argued, poses a small challenge to the Taliban but offers a larger opportunity to expand their reach. The challenge is that COVID-19 could potentially take out a large number of Taliban fighters, who live in close quarters and who train heavily together in the spring. However, Mr. Kugelman believes this is a minor challenge because of the Taliban’s strong position at the moment: the Taliban controls a sizeable amount of territory, and the U.S. is winding down operations in the region. More likely is that the Taliban uses COVID-19 as an opportunity to win local hearts and minds as the Afghanistan government fumbles its pandemic response. Indeed, the Taliban’s recent public messaging has focused on providing information about the pandemic and assurances that local citizens will be cared for and health care workers will be given access to all Taliban-controlled areas. The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction released a report at the end of April warning that a combination of poor healthcare infrastructure, malnutrition, and ongoing conflicts could lead to a health disaster. If this comes to pass, it will provide an opportunity for the Taliban to provide services and undermine the Afghan government.

Finally, Dr. Ottaway described how the Islamic State believes that because governments are distracted by COVID-19 and afraid of committing troops, now is an opportune time to increase the pace and severity of attacks. This rhetoric has been borne out by escalating attacks in Syria and Iraq since COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, with a 69% increase in ISIS’s armed activities in April 2020. The full impact of COVID-19 may not be known for years after the pandemic ends, but one important space to watch is how groups accustomed to rapidly changing conditions adapt and respond. Where do they see opportunities, and how can governments respond to this new environment?

If you missed this webinar, you can view the recording here.

The Future Bioweapons Threat: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic

By Yong-Bee Lim, Biodefense PhD Candidate

Introduction

On May 28th, the Council on Strategic Risks hosted a timely webinar to discuss The Future Bioweapons Threat: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. This webinar brought together a diverse panel of experts areas from weapons of mass destruction (WMD), film and media, biotechnology and data science, and public heath to discuss how the pandemic highlights existing gaps in addressing natural and potentially man-made biological threats; and understanding the obstacles and potential solutions to address future man-made and natural biological threats.

The panelists included the Honorable Andrew C. “Andy” Weber, Senior Fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks and the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs at the Pentagon; Max Brooks, the author of World War Z and Devolution, as well as a Nonresident Fellow at The Modern War Institute and the Atlantic Council; Dr. Alexander Titus, Chief Strategy Officer at the Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute (ARMI) and Senior Fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks; and George Mason’s very-own Dr. Saskia Popescu, Senior Infection Preventionist and Epidemiologist at HonorHealth and Adjunct Professor at Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health at the University of Arizona.

The event was moderated by Dr. Natasha E. Bajema, Founder and CEO of Nuclear Spin Cycle Publishing and Senior Fellow at the Council on Strategic Risks; and Christine Parthemore, CEO of the Council on Strategic Risks.

Gaps in Biopreparedness and Biodefense

One main area the panelists and moderators focused on was understanding how the failures to detect, mitigate, and respond to COVID-19 may make a future biological weapon attack more likely. Mr. Weber warned how easily COVID-19 has spread through naval ships and other branches of the armed services, which enhances the allure of weaponizing biology to undermine operational readiness. Mr. Weber also argued that the cheapness and ease of developing biological weapons make them even more alluring in the modern day. These incentives, in turn, weaken deterrence against the use of offensive biological weapons.

Mr. Brooks echoed Mr. Weber’s thought and added how the superiority of U.S. conventional forces drives adversaries to find indirect ways to engage in conflict. Mr. Brooks noted that the ease of development and use of biological weapons makes it potentially attractive to use in a variety of situations – from deploying weapons at ports to shut down trade to even targeting American citizens to erode morale in the military.

Dr. Popescu expanded the conversation to include how the pandemic shed light on gaps in public health and its ability to detect, respond to, and recover from a large-scale bio-event. She highlighted how public health is expected to achieve the ideal (such as having testing every individual) in a reality where there are only a finite number of tests available, and a finite number of facilities and individuals to administer them. Dr. Popescu added preparedness is a difficult sell to senior hospital administrators since it requires private companies like hospitals to permanently assume additional overhead.

Dr. Titus discussed how the perception of technology as an end in and of itself, rather than a means to enhancing an organization’s mission, has slowed the adoption of emerging technologies like synthetic biology and big data science. These delays have significantly cost the U.S. in its ability to deter, detect, mitigate, respond to, and recover from biological events. Dr. Titus presented how the relationship between biotechnology development and application is not a one-to-one relationship: a biotech development that allows a more efficient way to produce molecules of interest in yeast cells does not mean that technology has to be limited to a single molecule of interest. Rather, he viewed investment and development in biotechnology as an opportunity to mitigate infinite threats with infinite capabilities.

Obstacles and Solutions to Future Biothreats

One major obstacle all the panelists discussed was the issue of sustained efforts and funding. All the panelists pointed out how money is thrown at an issue in any crisis setting. This includes biological events like Amerithrax in 2001 and the Ebola outbreak from 2014 – 2016. However, biodefense suffers significantly once the crisis passes and the funding streams dry up. Therefore, panelists argued that funding alone was insufficient to meet the biothreats challenges of the future – current and future Administrations need to consider biothreats a priority, with stable funding streams to match.

Mr. Weber highlighted his personal experiences as the former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs during the Obama administration to display the bureaucratic and administrative complexities of addressing biothreats both domestically and internationally. He particularly emphasized a need to increase interagency communications and cooperation within the Department of Defense as well as other agencies to implement an all-hands approach to deal with future biological events.

Mr. Brooks saw a growing gap between citizens and policymakers as a major obstacle. Compared to the American citizens in the past, he viewed current citizens as disengaged from serious issues like biothreats and that this disengagement was encouraged, whether deliberately or not, by U.S. leadership. Mr. Brooks thought it was essential to bridge this gap, increase biodefense education, and cultivate buy-in from citizens if policymakers want to take concrete steps towards a safer world. He drew from his vast experience in helping shape the social consciousness to suggest making biodefense topics more tangible and impactful to the average citizen through fiction books, television shows, and movies, and recruiting influential celebrities as spokespeople for biodefense causes.

Dr. Popescu expressed concerns about communicating accurate information to the general public and a need to make this information that captures the general public’s attention. She also warned of potentially unscrupulous salesmen and armchair experts – individuals and companies that may exploit COVID-19 misinformation to sell “snake-oil” products ranging from sensationalist information to harmful cures, remedies, and cleaning agents to citizens. Finally, she strongly emphasized the need to discuss topics ranging from safer practices to operating in an ever-changing, uncertainty-filled environment as states begin to re-open after months of having citizens shelter in place.

Dr. Titus, along with other members of the panel, highlighted how inadvertent and deliberate misinformation is a major obstacle to getting buy-in and creating a plan of action to address biothreats. He, much in line with Dr. Popescu, noted that science communication alone is not sufficient to deal with misinformation campaigns on platforms like Twitter and Facebook. He asserted that disinformation spreads because it provides pay-offs to the recipient that factual information delivered in a dry, technical manner fails to deliver on. Compared to journal papers and books that experts often operate in, Dr. Titus noted that as little as 280 characters (2 tweets) is sufficient to sow doubt. Dr. Titus advocated for experts to find new ways to communicate with the public – new ways that do not require expertise to understand what experts are communicating.

Conclusion & Consensus

What is clear is the U.S. has a long way to go in addressing biological threats from natural and man-made sources. Further, the U.S. needs to adapt to new realities – a time where citizens’ trust of government is significantly lower, where citizens actively protest experts and their recommendations, and where misinformation is one tap on a smartphone away. And while the solutions are difficult to implement, the panelists and moderators of this timely webinar all believe that the end goal is worth it: a potential world where biological threats are a relic of history, as opposed to the unavoidable fate of humanity’s future.

Pandora Report: 5.29.2020

Exploring the Frontiers of Innovation to Tackle Microbial Threats

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) released proceedings from a workshop, dubbed Exploring the Frontiers of Innovation to Tackle Microbial Threats, help in December 2019. The workshop occurred, fittingly, in the same month as the birth of SARS-CoV-2, the viral agent of the COVID-19 pandemic the world is currently besieged by. This 1.5-day workshop of the Forum on Microbial Threats examined key developments in scientific, technological, and social innovations against microbial threats: diagnostics, vaccine development, antimicrobial therapies, nonpharmaceutical interventions, and disease surveillance tools. The proceedings outline important lessons learned, particularly regarding spurred innovations, from the poliovirus eradication campaign as well as the the on-the-ground work to quell Ebola virus disease outbreaks in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Dr. Rick Bright, the former director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), moderated the panel on incubating R&D through novel ecosystems. The output also includes content from panels regarding systematic approaches to motivate innovations in antimicrobial resistance R&D, barriers to access and use of innovations, and strategies to overcome barriers to innovation uptake. The full report can be found here.

FAS Announces the COVID-19 Rapid Response Task Force

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) announced the launch of its COVID-19 Rapid Response Task Force, an amalgamation of dozens of scientists and experts from across the United States. The Task Force is being established as a resource for federal and state legislators as well as other policymakers seeking sound scientific information regarding COVID-19 related topics. Such topics span biomedical research needs, diagnostic test development, and contact tracing challenges, all of which are important to reopening while containing the virus. The Task Force provides an open channel of communication to experts in numerous areas of need.

Student Spotlight: Laura Schmidt Denlinger

Schar School Biodefense PhD student Laura Schmidt Denlinger was promoted to the role of Deputy Team Chief for Counterproliferation Programs in the State Department Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation‘s Office of Cooperative Threat Reduction (ISN/CTR). As such, she coordinates CTR capacity-building programs that strengthen foreign partners’ ability to implement United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding WMD proliferation by North Korea and Iran, as well as the Chemical Security Program, Partnership for Nuclear Threat Reduction Program, and other lines of effort to counter emerging WMD proliferation threats.

GHSA Chair COVID-19 Statement

Dr. Roland Driece, Chair of the Global Health Security Agenda, recently provided a statement on the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the role of the GHSA2024. Emphasizing the role of international coordination and unification of efforts from governments to NGOs, Driece noted that this event should not be seen as an indicator that our efforts to prepare have failed, but rather that “Because of the work of GHSA, we have more information than in any previous outbreak about which countries have the most prepared systems, and where the international community needs to direct assistance. As countries and partners work to respond to spread of COVID-19, national plans supported by the International Health Regulations and Joint External Evaluations are guiding action and providing resources for decision making, prioritisation, and actions.” Through the extraordinary efforts of everyone ranging from lab to information systems, this naturally occurring event coordinated to respond and it will require the continued investment in preparedness to response and prevent future pandemics.

New Evidence on Disease Dynamics

The raging pandemic has spurred a deluge of interesting new and early release articles in Emerging Infectious Diseases, a journal published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A study transmission examining a cluster of COVID-19 cases associated with a shopping mall in Wenzhou, China indicated indirect transmission of the causative agent, likely via contaminated objects, virus aerosolization in confined spaces, or spread from close contact with asymptomatic infected persons. Another research team collected information on individual case reports and domestic travel across China to estimate important epidemiological measures, such as the disease’s incubation period and R0. Specifically, they found that in the early days of the outbreak, the doubling time was 2.3-3.3 days and the median R0 could hit 5.7, numbers that support the criticality of surveillance, contact tracing, and social distancing to slow transmission. A third study confirmed asymptomatic and human-to-human transmission via close contacts in family and hospital settings, information useful for practice in clinical diagnosis and treatment. Relatedly, further research found evidence supporting the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 while an infected patient was presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Transmission of the virus from presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases impacts the types of public health interventions needed to contain the virus. An analysis of coronavirus patients from Vietnam indicated that the virus was transmitted from a traveler from China. Additionally, an asymptomatic patient showed viral shedding, more evidence that transmission can occur in the absence of clinical signs and symptoms. An article examining transmission from a presymptomatic attendee at a meeting in Germany found evidence that the disease was further transmitted via handshaking and face-to-face contact. Read all these articles here.

Commentary – Public Policy in the Pandemic Age: How COVID-19 Is Reshaping Our Government, Economy, and Society

Stevie Kiesel, a Biodefense PhD Student, attended a GMU webinar featuring a discussion among a panel of experts regarding public health response strategies, economic impacts of lockdown, and potential longer-term implications of COVID-19. The panel included experts in economics, presidential leadership, emergency management, and disease transmission. Read the full commentary here.

 

Public Policy in the Pandemic Age: How COVID-19 Is Reshaping Our Government, Economy, and Society

By Stevie Kiesel, Biodefense PhD Student

On May 20th, the George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government hosted a webinar to discuss Public Policy in the Pandemic Age: How COVID-19 is Reshaping Our Government, Economy, and Society. Moderated by Biodefense Program Director Dr. Gregory Koblentz, this panel brought together experts in economics, presidential leadership, emergency management, and disease transmission to discuss public health response strategies; the economic impact of lockdowns and physical distancing; polarization; the role of state and local governments; and potential longer-term implications of COVID-19. Panelists included GMU Professor of Public Policy Dr. Maurice Kugler, GMU Associate Professor Dr. Jeremy Meyer, GMU Director for Extramural Projects Dr. Tonya Neaves, and Aerospace Physiologist Dr. Nereyda Sevilla.

Panelists described a variety of failures in the U.S. response to COVID-19, from the late implementation of physical distancing measures to insufficient testing capacity to inconsistent messaging and a lack of a coordinated strategy at the federal level. Dr. Mayer presented data on the number of tests being conducted per million people in a variety of countries; he found that low levels of testing in the U.S. blinded policymakers and scientists to the scope of the outbreak. Testing delays combined with uncoordinated federal messaging and a lack of a coherent national strategy set the U.S. on a path to failure that would see cases skyrocket at a rapid pace.

Dr. Kruger highlighted the economic challenges and dangers associated with lockdown policies that many countries put in place because they failed to enact physical distancing measures earlier in the outbreak. Lockdowns were meant to be used as a tool to flatten the curve, prevent a catastrophic surge of patients stressing hospital systems, and give the U.S. time to ramp up testing capacity. As many parts of the country prepare to lift lockdowns, the danger that the government did not adequately prepare during this time is high. As we saw recently in Wuhan, China when they emerged from lockdown, additional cases must be met with a massive testing capacity to contain a second wave. Dr. Kugler spoke favorably of the strategies implemented by South Korea, Germany, and Switzerland that involve massive testing and targeted care and isolation. While such a strategy has fewer drawbacks, particularly economic drawbacks, than lockdowns, Dr. Kugler believes that the U.S. does not have the resources, personnel, technology, and strategic vision to successfully implement a similar course of action.

Dr. Mayer makes the interesting point that, generally, in moments of national crisis, polarization is (at least briefly) reduced and the president enjoys a significant boost in his approval rating. Yet with COVID-19, Trump has had a noticeably smaller “crisis approval surge” than other presidents. Trump himself is likely partially to blame for this effect, because he has used the pandemic as a wedge to achieve political goals. His rhetoric has generally not invoked national unity, but has stoked opposition to his rivals. Dr. Mayer argues that polarization makes us more vulnerable and less able to recover quickly from a crisis. A point Dr. Kugler made seems to reinforce this idea—lockdown measures take a much greater toll on low-income Americans who are out of work and who have very few options to fall back on. How many of you reading this are teleworking? This “digital divide” is furthering the very economic inequality that has historically increased Americans’ susceptibility to polarizing messages.

As bleak a picture of our current situation as this may have painted, the panelists suggested steps the U.S. can take starting today to improve the response. For example, Dr. Kugler describes a testing strategy that would allow physical distancing measures to be relaxed. This strategy involves testing 23 million Americans every day, so that every American is tested on a roughly biweekly basis. While there are many questions about whether the U.S. can ramp up capacity and coordinate this level of testing, Dr. Kugler identifies five key criteria that will make such a policy successful: harnessing a wide range of laboratories’ capabilities, making data open source so that the private sector can fully mobilize, implementing robust oversight capabilities, establishing clear and effective lines of communication, and developing a strategy that defines a clear, simple, and achievable target.

Testing is just one part of the strategy the U.S. needs. Dr. Neaves highlighted the importance of state and local governments to this pandemic response; these leaders have stepped in to fill a vacuum left by the absence of national strategy and coordination. Dr. Neaves praised the regional partnerships that states have developed, and she argued that state governors should write an after-action report describing their successes and challenges, as well as those of the federal government’s. Such a report developed by a bipartisan group of governors will be key for improving pandemic response in the future and rebuilding the social capital and trust that the U.S. response to COVID-19 has eroded.

Finally, Dr. Sevilla made an important point about how the lessons we learned and the precautions we put in place because of COVID-19 could benefit the U.S. in unanticipated ways. For example, physical distancing measures, increased use of masks, reduced crowding, and increased handwashing could reduce the transmission of common pathogens, such as the flu virus. This prediction emphasizes the wide range of benefits that can be realized by prioritizing public health. Whether the U.S. next faces a natural or intentionally released outbreak from an emerging or well-known pathogen, broad-based improvements in public health infrastructure can bring benefits. The U.S. should prioritize improving laboratory capacity; bolstering state and local capabilities; helping medical systems prepare for a sudden surge in patients; and training in disease recognition the doctors and nurses who will be on the frontlines of the next outbreak.

GMU Biodefense Graduate Student Awards – 2020

OUTSTANDING BIODEFENSE MS STUDENT AWARD

This year’s Outstanding Biodefense Master’s student is Michael Krug. Michael entered the program with a background in biochemistry but he quickly mastered the policy aspects of biodefense as well and graduated with an impressive GPA of 3.97. Michael also took an active leadership role in the Biodefense program and co-founded the George Mason chapter of the Next Generation Global Health Security Network which is composed of students and young professionals around the world who work on issues at the next of health and security. This group brought in outside speakers, including former Senate Majority leader Thomas Daschle, and held several social events for students. Michael was also busy off-campus with internships in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and with the Nuclear Threat Initiative think tank where he worked on their comprehensive survey of how well countries are prepared for pandemics and other threats to global health security. Michael is now working as a global health officer in the Office of Pandemics and Emerging Threats in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Michael’s passion for bridging the gap between science and policy and strengthening global health security makes him an outstanding choice for this award.

OUTSTANDING BIODEFENSE PHD STUDENT

Saskia Popescu is this year’s outstanding Biodefense PhD student. Saskia has long been fascinated by the intersection of health and security. She entered the program with an MPH and Master’s in International Security. Saskia’s dissertation, “How Cost Containment Undermines Disease Containment: Political and Economic Obstacles to Investing in Infection Prevention and Control,” used concepts from political economy to explain why hospitals don’t spend enough on infection prevention and control programs despite their huge value to public health. Saskia also has extensive experience working in a hospital as an infection preventionist so her dissertation was able to combine both theory and practice. Unfortunately, her work was prescient in predicting the types of shortages and infection control failures we’ve seen throughout the country during the current pandemic. Saskia has also been busy with extracurricular activities. In 2017, Saskia was chosen for the prestigious Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Initiative at the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University. In 2018, she was selected to be a George Mason Global Health Security Student Ambassador and attend the 5th Global Health Security Agenda Summit in Bali, Indonesia. Saskia has also made a huge contribution to the Biodefense Program as the managing editor of The Pandora Report, our weekly newsletter which provides news and analysis on global health security issues to thousands of readers every week. Saskia has a knack for discussing complex issues in a jargon-free way and throwing in a little snark on the side. Saskia exemplifies the type of scholar the Biodefense PhD program is designed to produce: data-driven, science-based, theoretically-informed, analytically-rigorous, policy-relevant, and passionate about changing the world for the better.

FRANCES HARBOUR AWARD

The Frances Harbour Award is given to a biodefense student in recognition of his or her community leadership. Frances Harbour was an associate professor of government in the School, and a founding member and past president of the International Ethics Section of the International Studies Association. She was also a Social Science Research Council/John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow in International Peace and Security Studies

This year’s award goes to Yong-Bee Lim, who is (hopefully) in the final year of his dissertation on the do-it-yourself biology movement. Yong-Bee has been a visible and vocal part of the Biodefense program since he started as a Master’s student. Yong-Bee earned a Presidential Fellowship when he entered the PhD program and worked closely with several faculty members in the Biodefense program. Yong-Bee was a pleasure to work with and has consistently impressed the faculty with his work ethic and creativity. Along the way, Yong-Bee has worked at prestigious institutions such as the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Lab and the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction at National Defense University. In 2018, Yong-Bee was chosen for the prestigious Emerging Leaders in Biosecurity Initiative at the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University. Yong-Bee has also been a fantastic ambassador for the program and was always willing to volunteer his time to help recruit new students and mentor existing ones. We can’t wait for him to finish his dissertation and graduate—but we’ll also be very sad to see him go.