Category: Commentary

Dr. Jamechia Hoyle, Coordinator Next Generation Global Health Security Network, Visiting Scholar/Assistant Professor, Taipei Medical University, Adjunct Professor, George Mason University – Taiwan/USA

The 5^thGlobal Health Security Agenda (GHSA) Ministerial Meeting, hosted by the Government of Indonesia, under the theme “Advancing Global Partnerships” showcased many success stories and overall increased capacity towards realizing a world safe and secure from infectious disease threats. In a time where the Democratic Republic of Congo is facing its 10^thoutbreak of Ebola, cholera is spreading throughout Yemen, and the threat of pandemic influenza looms dedicated multisectoral commitments to preparedness are more important than ever. Continue reading “NextGen Health Security GHSA Reflections – Jamechia Hoyle” →

Saskia Popescu, MPH, MA, CIC – PhD Candidate, Biodefense George Mason University -USA

The infectious disease threats that jeopardize global health security are vast and evolve as technology becomes more sophisticated, populations grow, and the world gets a bit smaller. Efforts to reduce these vulnerabilities to infectious diseases have to be just as diverse and resilient. Despite strategies at the international, national, and local level, outbreaks continue to stress critical infrastructure. The Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) seeks to address these vulnerabilities and gaps to help strengthen national capabilities in preparing for, detecting, and responding to infectious disease threats. The GHSA is an especially unique approach to address biological threats as it utilizes multisectoral partners and reaches far beyond the scope of government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and academia. In truth, to address the unique predicament of infectious disease, a new strategy was needed and the GHSA is just that. The 5^thMinisterial Meeting of the GHSA was recently held in Bali, Indonesia, to address the most pressing issues facing global health security, assess our current state, and look towards the future with the release of the 2024 Framework. Continue reading “GMU Biodefense Student Ambassador GHSA Reflection – Saskia Popescu” →

By Michael Krug and Alexandria Tepper

On November 14^th, 2018, the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense presented a discussion session entitled “Biodefense Indicators: Progress in Implementing the National Blueprint for Biodefense”. The five-hour event was composed of a series of expert panels spanning multiple fields, agencies, and backgrounds. The panels were moderated by five co-chairs from the Blue-Ribbon Study Panel, including: Senator Joseph Lieberman, Governor Thomas Ridge, Senator Tom Daschle, Representative Jim Greenwood, and Kenneth Wainstein. The discussion centered around the steps being taken to bring the strategies mentioned in the White House’s 2018 National Biodefense Strategy to a reality.

The panel’s initial remarks involved assessing the progress of the federal government to the threat of a biological element, whether it be naturally-occurring, man-made, or accidental, since the release of the panel’s  Blue Ribbon Blueprintin 2015. Senator Lieberman was determined to reinforce the idea that the Blue Ribbon Blueprint should “provide a roadmap to improving how we prepare for, defend against, and respond to biological threats of all natures.” The tone reflected by the chairs acknowledged that the progress made by the federal government has been promising but incomplete. The recent release of the 2018 National Biodefense Strategywas a major step forward in attempting to recognize and fix the shortcomings surrounding the biological threat facing the United States.  Gov. Tom Ridge explained the difficulties facing the Blue Ribbon’s cause, saying “The threat is real. It’s not sexy. Nobody’s talking about it. Whether it’s natural or generated by design, it’s a real problem. I’m interested in discussing today how we go forward as a country.” This statement reverberated the purpose of the panel and the uphill challenges facing the implementation of the National Biodefense Strategy process. Continue reading “Review of the Blue Ribbon Study Panel “Biodefense Indicators: Progress in Implementing the National Blueprint for Biodefense”” →

by Wardah Amir, Graduate Student in the Security Policy Studies Program, The George Washington University

On September 14 2013, a deal was reached between the United States and Russia which set a deadline for the destruction of the declared Syrian chemical weapons stockpile. While the original deadline set by the deal was not met, on June 23 2014 the last of Syria’s declared chemical weapons had been successfully removed out of the country amidst its civil war. Despite these efforts, chemical weapons were continuously used in the Syrian Arab Republic. In April this year, Douma fell victim to yet another chemical attack. Roughly 40 to 70 lives were lost. Continue reading “Event Summary and Analysis for “The Implications of Chemical Weapons Use in Syria”” →

By Alexandria Tepper and Michael Krug, GMU Biodefense

On October 9^th, 2018, the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense presented a discussion session entitled “Fits and Starts: Reactionary Biodefense”. The five-hour event was composed of a series of expert panels spanning multiple fields, agencies, and backgrounds. The panels were moderated by four co-chairs from the Blue-Ribbon Study Panel, including: Former Senator Joseph Lieberman, Former Governor Thomas Ridge, Senator Tom Daschle, and Kenneth Wainstein. The discussion centered around the steps taken, 17 years later, since the anthrax events of 2001. Continue reading “Review of the Blue Ribbon Study Panel “Fits and Starts: Reactionary Biodefense”” →

by Janet Marroquin, GMU Biodefense

Nearing the two year anniversary of the Biodefense Strategy Act and twelve years after the Amerithrax incident that changed the course of biodefense, a new National Biodefense Strategy has been released by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In 2016, the Biodefense Strategy Act produced a congressional requirement for the White House to create a new biodefense strategy in response to a 2015 Blue Ribbon Study Panel report that determined the 2009 National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats to be inadequate in effectively protecting the U.S. from biological threats.  Policy recommendations made by the Panel and various other advisory councils, including the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, the National Security Council, and the Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria (see previous Pandora Report article on the M.I.A. biodefense strategy) included the following: Continue reading “A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Multi-Disciplinary Threats” →

by GMU biodefense graduate student Justin Hurt

On August 21^st, 2018, the National Academies presented a “Luncheon Series” discussion on recent research conducted by a Department of Defense sponsored group to assess the state of national biodefense and biosecurity efforts. Titled “A Roadmap for Biosecurity and Biodefense Policy in the United States,” the discussion centered on a research study conducted over the past year that sought to define the linkages and differences between the various biodefense and biosecurity-related policies, regulations, legislation, and agreements, how they affected stakeholders in affiliated institutions and organizations, and where gaps may exist that require further analysis.

Moderated by Katherine Bowman of the National Academies, two of the main contributors to the study, Diane DiEuliis of National Defense University’s Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Kavita Berger of Gryphon Scientific, discussed their research process and findings with a large group of academic, non-profit, and governmental associates during the monthly National Academies lunchtime discussion series. The impetus for the study was largely founded in the recent increase in interest regarding biodefense and biotechnology advancements and risks over the past two years. This included heightened international engagements, changes in the biotechnology landscape and the advent of new uses for biological science, all of which have contributed not only to potentially life-enhancing and prosperous outcomes for mankind, but also increased anxieties about the potential for illicit and dangerous uses of such technology. Continue reading “REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES LUNCH SERIES ON BIODEFENSE AND BIOSECURITY, AUGUST 21st, 2018” →

By GMU Biodefense graduate student, Carlos Alvarado

On August 21^st the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine hosted Dr. Kavita Berger of Gryphon Scientific and Dr. Diane DiEuliis of National Defense University. The event focused on discussing the Roadmap for Implementing Biosecurity and Biodefense Policy in the United States.

In the opening slides, Dr. Berger explained that this review of the roadmap would only be focused on the United States policies and not outside sources. Many countries have their own polices as she explained; however, the goal of this project was to investigate only U.S. polices. She began by giving a brief overview of the actual roadmap, which is for implementing biosecurity and biodefense policy to influence the capabilities and advances in technology and science while minimizing security threats. A key point in these slides were to remember that as technology and science advances, so do the potential threats. Dr. Berger used examples of research, development, institutions, applications, and countries as the driving factors of influencing advances on science and technology. Dr. Berger illustrated how these factors are constantly changing and shifting the biotechnology landscape. An example that was used is how engineering, biology, chemistry, and even health and safety are a wide variety of disciplines that are growing within the biotechnology realm and that it is no longer just a single discipline of biology. The take away from this information was with all these factors there must be regulation to ensure potential threats are not overlooked or ignored but at the same to furthering our research.   Continue reading “NASEM: Roadmap for Implementing Biosecurity and Biodefense Policy in the United States” →

by Stephen Taylor, GMU Biodefense MS student 

At its recent meeting about resilience, the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense explored the potential impacts of a biological event on critical infrastructure in the United States, as well as the best way to approach risk mitigation.  Ann Beauchesne, former Senior Vice President of the National Security and Emergency Preparedness Department at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, summed up critical infrastructure as “the critical services for our society and the backbone our economy.”  Projected increases in global travel, trade, and development all rely on critical infrastructure, magnifying the potential impact of insults to infrastructure systems.  Concurrently, biological threats are also on the rise. As the world warms and urbanizes, natural infectious disease outbreaks manifest in unexpected places. Anthrax and ricin-laced letters to U.S. political leaders in 2001 and 2013, respectively, represent only the vanguard of a new age of deliberate biological threats.  Gene editing and synthetic biological technologies, as demonstrated by the de novo synthesis of horsepox virus in 2017, offer ever-evolving tools for creating potent biological weapons.  The Dutch Ministry of Defense has projected that the world is likely to face a large-scale biological attack in the next 10-15 years. America must be prepared for the contingency that biological threats and critical infrastructure collide. Continue reading “Biological Events, Critical Infrastructure, and the Economy: An Unholy Trinity” →