ASM Biothreats 2018

We’re the source for all things biodefense and the annual ASM Biothreats conference is no different. GMU’s biodefense program was fortunate to send several students to attend and report back on some of the enlightening and captivating sessions during the biothreat event. Below you’ll find several commentaries from each student who attended – happy reading!

Mariam Awad – Biodefense MS Student
Mariam is a graduate student with a background in biochemistry and foreign affairs and is reporting on breakout sessions on the international landscape of biodefense and artificial intelligence for biosurveillance. “During this talk, speakers addressed both bilateral and multilateral research projects in various regions around the world led by various US agencies including State Department and defense threat reduction agency.” Next, Awad discusses “how we can utilize machine learning for creating situational awareness of both intentional and naturally occurring biological incidents. One of the current hurdles in conducting biosurvillance for Bacillus Anthracis and pandemic influenza include lack of tools that can rapidly structure, integrate and analyze large, disparate data with little human exposure and intervention.”

Jessica Smrekar – Biodefense MS Student
Jessica has a background in biology and biotechnology and is giving us insight into one of the keynote speakers, Dr. Ilaria Capua, and her frank talk about the relationship between the government and science. “This particular keynote described her story of shame, falsification, and the effects populism on the scientific community. She began by stating this was the hardest speech she has ever had to give and that we would understand why by the end of it.  She then set the scene by speaking of the turmoil of the modern age and how this age has brought along hard times for everyone.” Next, Smrekar evaluates one of the more controversial discussions – the future of P3C0, noting that “A large portion of the session was dedicated to analyzing the risk of gain of function studies with PPPs and how these risks compare to the benefits from such research.”

Anthony Falzarano – Biodefense MS Student
Anthony, having just attended the GHSA Kampala summit, delves into global approaches to threat reduction through OneHealth. “This new concept that we must consider all the health-related disciplines to truly understand and address the challenges faced in public health has grown to be the backbone of forward-thinking health initiatives like the Global Health Security Agenda.” Next, Falzarano is also giving his perspective on the panel on the international landscape of biodefense. “While these threats may be from natural or man-made infectious disease events, they all share a similar connection in that pathogenic diseases do not respect borders or political lines. This session featured speakers from the United States Department of State, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center. These entities are working both together and in parallel to address the biosecurity risks posed against our country and to the world.”

Justin Hurt – Biodefense PhD Student
Justin is providing us with a detailed account of the breakout session on planning for the future and the DoD programs to help inform biodefense policy. “One such player that has not only significant expertise, but also a robust research and development capability in countering biological threats is the Department of Defense (DoD). Joined by its partner agencies in the national security enterprise, the DoD leads a wide-ranging portfolio of projects geared toward preventing, preparing for, and mitigating the possibility of a future biological attack or public health crisis.”

Stephen Taylor – Biodefense MS Student
Stephen, also a GHSA Kampala Summit attendee, is delving into the talk from DARPA and BARDA researchers regarding prevention planning against the next pandemic. “Justin Yang, a project officer at BARDA, spoke about BARDA’s vision to shrink the gap between patients and treatment, both physically and temporally. For instance, U.S. healthcare providers have access to a myriad of influenza diagnostics. Using these tools in a timely manner, however, is problematic.” Stephen also provides an overview of Dr. Robert Kadlec’s keynote address. “The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, though in retreat, still poses a multi-state threat in the Middle East.  Additionally, pandemics such as Ebola and Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza have become increasingly common in our interconnected world.  Dr. Kadlec also acknowledged that global climate change will continue to contribute to unpredictable and intense weather events with potentially disastrous consequences.  The post-Cold War days of peppermint, ponies, and unicorns, Dr. Kadlec emphasized, were short-lived.”

 

Breakout Session – Planning for the Future: Department of Defense Programs and Processes to Inform Biodefense Policy

By Justin Hurt

Any future approach to countering potential biological threats will require a multi-faceted, integrated effort by many players to ensure that all appropriate methodologies and scenarios are considered in developing policies and solutions. One such player that has not only significant expertise, but also a robust research and development capability in countering biological threats is the Department of Defense (DoD). Joined by its partner agencies in the national security enterprise, the DoD leads a wide-ranging portfolio of projects geared toward preventing, preparing for, and mitigating the possibility of a future biological attack or public health crisis.

In a discussion moderated by Dr. Jeffrey “Clem” Fortman of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense, several experts from the federal agencies associated with combating biological threats discussed emerging trends in the field of biodefense. Joined by Ms. Robin Wales of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s (DTRA) Global Futures Office, Dr. Brad Ringeisen of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Biotechnologies Office, and Dr. David Shepard of the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology Directorate, Dr. Fortman outlined the current DoD priorities and projects in the biodefense realm. The DoD’s multi-layered approach, informed by the June 2014 DoD Strategy for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), includes being the federal government’s technical lead for biothreat response, leveraging a range of internal and external experts, and interagency partners.

Collaboration between the internal service components of the DoD, including the Army, Air Force, and Navy provides the warfighter’s viewpoint on addressing biodefense needs in military environments. Through a series of ongoing studies and workshops, the services are providing perspectives to the myriad partners the DoD has in research and development, including bringing external experts and emerging leaders into the defense establishment through programs such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Science and Technology Policy Fellows Program and the Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship. The DoD is currently working with such experts and interagency partners on a final report sponsored by the National Academy of Science on “Strategies for Identifying and Addressing Biodefense Vulnerabilities posed by Synthetic Biology.” This document, with a framework to identify and describe gaps in knowledge and technology as well as generate ideas for mitigation options, is expected in a final format in late Spring 2018. Continue reading “Breakout Session – Planning for the Future: Department of Defense Programs and Processes to Inform Biodefense Policy”

Dual Perspectives on The International Landscape of Biodefense: New Terrain

Enjoy dual perspectives on this captivating talk by two biodefense MS students, Mariam Awad and Anthony Falzarano.

Part I – By Anthony Falzarano 
The increased attention to Biodefense by both the United States Government as well as other world governments has largely been spurred by advancements in knowledge and intelligence of various threats in the post-9/11 world. While these threats may be from natural or man-made infectious disease events, they all share a similar connection in that pathogenic diseases do not respect borders or political lines. This session featured speakers from the United States Department of State, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center. These entities are working both together and in parallel to address the biosecurity risks posed against our country and to the world.

The US State Department addresses Biodefense largely through the Biosecurity Engagement Program (BEP). As Siddha Hover-Page, representative and presenter from the US State Department said, BEP works in three factors: Terror interest in bioweapons, dangerous pathogens, and bioscience capability and containment. She noted that naturally occurring diseases are typically the highest priority, but that it is also always a priority of the government to gather intel on and track terrorist groups or state actors who may be interested in deploying a biological weapon. In addition to the three pillars of the BEP, she spoke about the program’s extensive role in the Middle East and areas of Africa, in the roles of disease detection and response, and in scientist engagement.

While the US Department of State supports programs aimed at deterring and countering biological weapon use, the premier biological weapons nonproliferation agency for the US and her allies is the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), according to the second speaker on this panel, Dr. Gavin Braustein. DTRA, Braustein says, heavily supports biosurveillance initiatives to help track diseases and provide epidemiological data, biosafety and security to promote worldwide safe and secure research, and engages in cooperative research efforts which largely support One Health initiatives. Braustein spoke extensively about how the first and foremost priority of DTRA is to focus on the select pathogens which are of interest and concern to the United States, and to address them by implementing programs which not only help detection and tracking of them worldwide, but also assist other governments in doing safe and responsible research for their own protection.

Finally, Dr. Calvin Chue spoke about the globally-collaborative programs supported by the Edgewood Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC), colloquially called “security through sharing.” According to Chue, ECBC regularly engages in science diplomacy – exchange programs including knowledge sharing, data sharing and analysis exchange, sharing of scientists and researchers, and the exchange of materials, protocols, equipment and organism strains. These collaborative efforts, Chue says, help countries to not only be transparent and supportive of the research with ultimately benefits the whole planet, but also provides a way for knowledge to be easily shared and governments to check and balance the research being done worldwide to promote responsible research initiatives.

This panel highlighted just a few of the myriad of ways that the United States Government works collaboratively and transparently with other governments and agencies around the world. Both One Health and science diplomacy have a very intimate, integral part in developing the entire world towards the capacity to prevent, detect and effectively respond to infectious disease threats, no matter the type, source, or location on the globe.

Part II – By Mariam Awad 
We are as strong as our weakest link. This phrase drives the purpose for the United States biodefense international efforts. During this talk, speakers addressed both bilateral and multilateral research projects in various regions around the world led by various US agencies including the State Department and DTRA. The objectives of these research projects are to increase global biosafety and biosecurity efforts. Some of the research projects aim to increase electronic surveillance reporting, early-detection of disease and collection of a world-wide select agent list. In Azerbaijan, researchers are working towards investigating mosquito and tick populations abundant in the south eastern region of the country. In Kazakhstan, the United States is working with a local team to conduct molecular characterization and genome sequencing of new castle disease virus strains native to that region. In addition, the US military is working on several projects in Jordan and Georgia to increase information and data sharing as well as strengthen material transfer and exchange programs for scientists to collaborate and learn about how to safely conduct bio/chem related research. An example of an on-going multilateral project is a collaboration between scientists in Turkey, Georgia and Armenia with US guidance focused on understanding the risk of bat-borne zoonotic disease emergence in western Asia. The discussion ended by addressing some of the difficulties with working on multi-lateral projects. “Personnel conflicts have historically provided the greatest setbacks”. In other words, it takes one person in a high position in a foreign country to stop multi-lateral agreements that may have taken place for a long time before his/her start date. 

We Are the World: Global Approaches to Threat Reduction Through OneHealth

By Anthony Falzarano

One Health – the booming initiative to encourage collaboration between all varieties of physicians, veterinarians, and virtually every remaining health-related field of practice – is a word that you’d be hard pressed to go ten minutes without hearing at any conference, meeting or coffee conversation involving global health and biodefense. This new concept that we must consider all the health-related disciplines to truly understand and address the challenges faced in public health has grown to be the backbone of forward-thinking health initiatives like the Global Health Security Agenda.

Despite being a relatively new movement, One Health programs have been implemented around the world in many capacities, and have brought with them many successes while simultaneously uncovering new challenges. At ASM Biothreats this year, a session to showcase these new findings from various worldwide One Health approaches was organized. Titled We Are the World: Global Approaches to Threat Reduction Through One Health, this session featured a panel of experts from various organizations and agencies such as World Health Organization, World Organization for Animal Health, and the Nelson Mandela African Institution of Science and Technology. The speakers all highlighted projects within their various organizations which had flavors of One Health, demonstrating new and ambitious technologies to prevent, detect and respond to infectious disease threats. Continue reading “We Are the World: Global Approaches to Threat Reduction Through OneHealth”

The Background and Future Direction of P3CO

By Jessica Smrekar

Saving some of the most controversial discussions for the very last session, a conglomerate of private and government agencies came together to examine potentially pandemic pathogen care and oversight, nicknamed P3CO.  This collection of experts included Gerald Epstein of the White House Office of Science Technology and Policy, Ryan Ritterson from Gryphon Scientific LLC, and Mary Delarosa of HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. Each of these experts provided presentations that dissected the struggle between useful research of potentially pandemic pathogens (PPP) and the dual use this research may stimulate.

A large portion of the session was dedicated to analyzing the risk of gain of function studies with PPPs and how these risks compare to the benefits from such research. Gryphon is a specialized, small business consulting practice that has technical background in life sciences. Their analysis is dedicated to issues of global health and homeland security. This practice was contracted by the National Institutes of Health to run a risk and benefit analysis of gain of function research and provide an unbiased report of such research.  This proved to be a difficult task, as forecasting realized benefits of scientific research is challenging and risk analyses are hindered by data gaps.  Upon completion of this report, analysts found that though there are several concerning factors of gain of function research, such as lab accidents, accidental release and open sharing of research, the risk is relatively low when conducted in the proper manner.  There was found to be a low risk of lab accidents or potential for accidental release and the information released to the public did not increase the risk of potential threats.  With this information laid out, there was a plea to begin to fill in the data gaps that exist with missing biosafety information and to encourage timely and accurate incident reporting to keep the risks of this research from rising.

Funding for this research was also touched upon, which falls into the hands of the HHS.  This focused on the potential for pandemics and the creation of enhanced pathogens.  The rigorous system is set up to assess the research and review the risk and benefit analysis to establish the highest level of safety.  P3CO and enhanced pathogens are the main concern in this review, which covers pathogens that are highly transmissible and highly virulent and research to enhance virulence or transmissibility.  Such research runs through a multidisciplinary department evaluation and an advisory board to encourage transparency and public engagement.  This is considered the Pre-Funding Review and from this review HHS determines if funding will be provided, denied, or if modifications need to be made in order to receive funding.

The strong stigma against research of potentially pandemic pathogens is difficult to dislodge, but this panel of experts took up the challenge and discussed the topic through a full spectrum of risks, benefits, and how the scientific and policy community are working to protect the global community from harmful exposure.

Pills and Needles:  At the Forefront of Next Generation Pandemic Preparedness

by Stephen Taylor

How do you stop a pandemic?  Do you focus on rapid diagnosis and treatment of the infected?  Do you try to anticipate it and head it off at the start?  Do you vaccinate against the etiologic agent and stop it entirely?  The ‘Pills and Needles’ Panel on Monday, February 12th explored all of these options.  Distinguished speakers from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority detailed prevention, planning, and response initiatives to better prepare the United States against pandemic threats.

Justin Yang, a project officer at BARDA, spoke about BARDA’s vision to shrink the gap between patients and treatment, both physically and temporally.  For instance, U.S. healthcare providers have access to a myriad of influenza diagnostics.  Using these tools in a timely manner however, is problematic.  Influenza diagnostic capabilities are not networked, meaning that there is a two-week lag in the U.S. to collect and disseminate influenza incidence data.  With the population’s view of flu outbreaks constantly stuck two weeks in the past, patients are less likely to be proactive about reporting to a healthcare provider with flu-like symptoms.  By the time most patients receive a flu diagnosis, they are well outside the window of effectiveness for antivirals like oseltamivir.  BARDA’s solution to this diagnostic lag is to empower individuals as pandemic first responders, taking a personalized approach to a global problem.  BARDA modeling shows that if individuals were equipped with either in-home or wearable diagnostics in advance of an influenza pandemic, their time to report to a health care provider would be shortened, their spread of the virus to others limited, and overall incidence of flu cases greatly reduced.  BARDA is applying this paradigm to other pathogens of pandemic potential with the aim of building an early identification ecosystem around next generation wearable diagnostic technology.

Continue reading “Pills and Needles:  At the Forefront of Next Generation Pandemic Preparedness”

 Artificial Intelligence for Biosurveillance/ Real-time Situational Awareness/ US Department of Homeland Security

By Mariam Awad

The purpose of this series of talks was to discuss how we can utilize machine learning for creating situational awareness of both intentional and naturally occurring biological incidents. One of the current hurdles in conducting biosurvillance for Bacillus anthracis and pandemic influenza include lack of tools that can rapidly structure, integrate and analyze large, disparate data with little human exposure and intervention. The speakers focused on how to apply advancement in artificial intelligence and machine learning towards analysis of data for decision makers. Topic areas ranged from detection, tracking, and forecasting events, as well as analysis of genomic data as it relates to understanding and characterizing a biological event.

One speaker discussed how we can integrate data from multiple streams. One cheap stream is scanning social media accounts to track the spread of disease. This data, while unstructured, can be useful by incorporating a program that would give the raw data parameters such as location, population and duration. One limitation for this potential tool is its inability to predict unknown diseases. How can we conduct surveillance for a bug we don’t know? How do you know what data is significant?

A group from Carnegie Mellon University has designed a program that detects new novel symptoms through a “key-word” scan. The program assigns a significance value to new symptoms as well as old. If those new symptoms are occurring over and over in the data, then scientists are able to pay attention to them and assess whether or not they are significant. For example, if the program finds “tainted coffee” while scanning the data, it will assign it a significance value and will be added to the “memory” for future encounters. This tells us what to search from within the data. The potential impact of this tool in biosurvillance and early detection is huge.

 

 

Dr. Ilaria Capua’s Keynote Speech – Science and the Government

By Jessica Smrekar

As the third keynote speaker, Dr. Ilaria Capua broke the mold and gave the conference a personal, quick, intimate glance into a darker side of the relationship between science and government.  This particular keynote described her story of shame, falsification, and the effects populism on the scientific community.  She began by stating this was the hardest speech she has ever had to give and that we would understand why by the end of it.  She then set the scene by speaking of the turmoil of the modern age and how this age has brought along hard times for everyone. Politics, science, journalism, all lack the respect and compassion that keeps society grounded. Dr. Capua went on to describe the shift society has undergone towards a “populist” and “post-truth” movement. The combination of these two ideologies has begun to shift public opinion away from fact-based knowledge and aims to appeal to emotional based reactions. Dr. Capua defined populism as a set of ideas or activities geared to get support from ordinary people by giving them what they want. Post-truth was defined as an ideology that denotes circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in the public opinion than emotional response. In this “fake news” era occurring now, it seems that populism, post-truth, and science are oil and water. While populism instigates decision-making based on sentiment in searching for “good” and “bad,” science is not so black and white.  Through post-truth extravagant interpretation of scientific breakthroughs, including vaccines, animal use in laboratories, and genetically modified organisms, populism has begun to chip away at the credibility of scientists and their respective studies. This was the trap that Dr. Capua found herself caught in.

A veterinarian by training, Dr. Capua began her career as director of the Division of Biomedical Science of the Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Venezie in Padua, Italy. She found herself smack in the middle of the H7N1 avian influenza pandemic in 1999 and began to migrate toward avian influenza research. Fast-forward to the 2005 H5N1 pandemic, Dr. Capua was hard at work sequencing the pandemic virus to further research on a vaccination program. Her research caught the eye of the World Health Organization, who confronted her and demanded the sequence be kept from the public domain. Dr. Capua, believing in transparency and sharing of data, refused the orders and published her virus sequence on the website GenBank, which allows the sequence to be available to fellow scientists and sparked the beginning of a data sharing debate. Continue reading “Dr. Ilaria Capua’s Keynote Speech – Science and the Government”

Pandora Report 2.23.2018

Happy Friday fellow biodefense friends! Curious about human migrant history? Ancient DNA is giving us some insight into our ancestors movements and habits. FluMist also just got the green light for use next flu season.

 Crossing the Rubicon: Horsepox Synthesis
Julius Caesar is said to have stated “alea iacta est” (the die is cast) as he led his army across the Rubicon river, triggering a point of no return in Roman history. In many ways, the horsepox synthesis is considered a new Rubicon for synthetic biology and the life sciences. While the lead researcher of the project and the private company backing it cite desires to advance progress in the pursuit of a new smallpox vaccine and identifying gaps (“Our hope is that this work will promote new and informed public health discussions relating to synthetic biology, stimulate new evaluation of [horsepox]-based vaccines, and advance the capacity to rapidly produce next-generation vaccines and poxvirus-based therapeutics.“), many are asking if they put profits ahead of public safety. The research team claimed they chose to synthesize the virus because they could obtain it no other way, but a recent article by NPR is challenging this. “There was another possibility, NPR has learned. Evans could have done research on a specimen of horsepox collected from the wild, but he didn’t pursue that alternative. He says using the natural virus might have prevented the pharmaceutical company he is working with from commercializing horsepox as a new vaccine for smallpox. But the head of the company told NPR that he had not been aware that this stored sample of horsepox was potentially available — and would not have wanted to synthesize the virus from scratch if he had known.” So now that we’ve ventured across the river, it seems that we may be learning more about dual-use research in general. Gregory Lewis notes that “Beyond the immediate issue of whether the horsepox work should have been performed (or published), the horsepox synthesis story highlights a more general challenge facing dual-use research in biotechnology: the unilateralist’s curse.” Lewis describes the unilateralist’s curse – “imagine that 100 scientists are individually deciding whether it would be a good idea to synthesize horsepox. All of them act impartially and in good faith: They would only conduct this work if they really thought it was on balance good for humankind. Each of them independently weighs up the risks and benefits of synthesizing horsepox, decides whether it is wise to do so, and acts accordingly. The situation arises from the fact that, if synthesis of horsepox is not to occur, all 100 scientists must independently decide not to pursue it; while if any of the scientists judges the benefits to outweigh the risks, he or she acts unilaterally to synthesize horsepox. Thus there is an ‘action bias’: Horsepox synthesis is more likely to occur when scientists act independently than when they agree to a decision as a group.” Has the quest for the “first strike” in scientific discovery outweighed the risks of dual-use research? The horsepox synthesis has cast a bright light upon the challenges of DURC oversight and the gaps we are struggling to even acknowledge. 

Examining Challenges & Possible Strategies to Strengthen U.S. Health Security
The National Academies of Science have released the latest proceedings of a workshop regarding the progress that has been made in the last 15 years towards improving health security, but also the gaps that exist. “On March 8–9, 2017, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Disasters and Emergencies hosted a two-day public workshop to acknowledge these persistent issues; to evaluate past, and perhaps inadequate, approaches to addressing them; and to discuss intentional and innovative new solutions. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.” The report includes proposed priorities and challenges, underlying issues in health security, and potential strategies for strengthening American health security. Such strategies include developing a shared agenda, promoting a culture of learning and sharing, building the evidence base for policy and operations, etc. “Levy called for a paradigm shift toward conceptualizing health care, public health, the business community, and other sectors as parts of a whole that need to be integrated to provide a better environment for the community at large and better care for the community on a day-to-day basis.” Optimizing the exchange of information was also discussed, as was ensuring the interoperability of data across multiple systems. Participants also examined the financial components of health security and making the business case for investment.

 Biohacker’s Remorse
Last year saw contaminated CRISPR DIY kits hit Europe, but it did little to calm the biohacking stunts of Odin CEO Josiah Zayner. In a recent article, Zayner pointed to the moment another biotech CEO dropped trouser and injected himself with an untested herpes treatment mid-conference, as a wakeup call. “’Honestly, I kind of blame myself,’ Zayner told me recently. He’s been in a soul-searching mood; he recently had a kid and the backlash to the CRISPR stunt in October had been getting to him. ‘There’s no doubt in my mind that somebody is going to end up hurt eventually,’ he said.” Zayner says his past actions were efforts to provoke people in the industry who are involved in regulation and ethics in regards to roadblocks for CRISPR and DIY kits, noting that it’s a moral and ethical dilemma. Unfortunately, his sentiments aren’t doing much for those who feel his actions were attention-seeking stunts and he has yet to prove his concern for the DIY CRISPR risks. In case anyone was wondering if Zayner is still up to his old tricks, he also provided his latest video (Gut Hack) in which he attempts to give himself a fecal transplant. While this sounds gross (and it is), what’s more concerning is that an unlicensed and untrained individual is attempting to perform a very specific task that requires a stringent infection control guidelines and procedures. For those of us who have spent years working to perfect policies and practices so this medical procedure can be used to treat patients suffering from Clostridium difficile, this is not something to be taken lightly and isn’t exactly a good indicator that Zayner has learned from his mishaps. 

When Poor Infection Control Results In A Lawsuit
Who is responsible when hospitals decide to neglect infection prevention and control? A critical component to patient safety during medical care, infection control failures can result in the spread of infection – like the transmission of Ebola to healthcare workers. A recent court decision may be setting precedent for infection control responsibility during outbreaks. A Seoul court recently ordered the South Korean government to pay compensation to a patient who acquired MERS-CoV after the government failed to implement infection control. The patient “became infected while being admitted at a hospital in Daejeon where patient 16 was staying. Patient 16 moved there not knowing that had been infected by a different person, identified as patient 1 who infected 28 others, at Pyeongtaek St. Mary’s Hospital in Gyeonggi Province. Patient 1, who had been admitted to St. Mary’s more than two weeks after returning from a trip to Bahrain, a Middle Eastern country, May 4, reported suspected symptoms of MERS with health authorities the morning of May 18. However, the Korea Centers for Disease and Prevention (KCDC) dismissed it, saying the country had no reports of a MERS outbreak.” The court notes that if quarantine would have been implemented appropriately, it could have stopped the spread.

Budgeting for Medical Countermeasures
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s latest report highlights not only the growing concern for infectious disease threats, but also the role of medical countermeasures. Pointing to Project Bioshield and the procurement of 27 medical countermeasures, the white paper “will summarize the progress to date in procuring medical countermeasures and prior congressional funding mechanisms for Project BioShield. It will also discuss ways to optimize funding for medical countermeasures so that the existing public-private partnership can continue to thrive: namely, by restoring the program’s original multi-year funding structure.”

Can Nanoparticles Help Us Battle Antimicrobial Resistance?
As news emerges of an extensively drug-resistant (XDR) typhoid strain in Pakistan, it’s hard to imagine winning the battle of the resistant bug. Can nanoparticles tackle AMR? A research team led by Andrea O’Connor at the University of Melbourne is taking on antimicrobial resistance through nanoparticles and collaboration with a nearby hospital. “Together, the team found that selenium (a mineral that humans require in their diets to boost immunity and aid metabolism) in the form of nanoparticles can stop the growth of bacteria such as ‘Golden Staph’ (Staphylococcus aureus). Their findings are published in the Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. They think the nanoparticles do this by disrupting the membrane around the bacteria. ‘One of the ways that these nanoparticles can attack bacteria is by disrupting that membrane so they make the bacteria leaky, and then things can pass in and out of the bacteria in a way they normally wouldn’t’.” The team hopes that selenium nanoparticles have potential applications for when antibiotic efficiency dwindles, especially in terms of chronic wounds. Their nanoparticles have been tested against nine different kinds of bacteria and have found success against all of them.

 Tales From A Virus Hunter
With CDC and global health security funding in a dire situation, the days of virus hunters trekking through jungles and providing boots-on-the-ground support for outbreaks may be in jeopardy. Dr C.J. Peters is one of the old school virus hunters who tackled Rift Valley Fever and Bolivian hemorrhagic fever in their early days. “Peters was a virus hunter. That often meant spending time in the field, mostly in Latin America but also in Africa, where the work was interesting and the bosses far away. ‘If you’re in the shadow of the flagpole from headquarters, you’re in trouble,’ he explained. ‘Because there will be somebody poking into everything you’re doing.’ Virus hunting today is not what it used to be. There is still adventure to be had, with bold scientists seeking to uncover the mysteries of the unseen world and ultimately benefit human health. But things have also changed.”

Stories You May Have Missed:

  • Flu Vaccine Act– Last week several US senators released their proposal to invest $1 billion in research for a universal flu vaccine over the next five years. “From a total investment of $1 billion, the proposed law would direct $200 million each year over fiscal years 2019 through 2023 to universal flu vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), according to a press release from Markey’s office. For comparison, he said the NIH’s National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) spent about $64 million in fiscal year 2017 on universal flu vaccine research.”

Thank you for reading the Pandora Report. If you would like to share any biodefense news, events, or stories, please contact our Editor Saskia Popescu (biodefense@gmu.edu) or via Twitter: @PandoraReport

Pandora Report 2.16.2018

 

 White House Budget Hits Public Health
The White House has released their new plan, “Efficient, Effective, Accountable: An American Budget”, which sees an increase in military spending, funds for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, and a 10%  increase in spending from 2017. “The plan also calls for major cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and other social programs — reductions that conservatives have long sought. But even with these reductions, which add up to more than $3 trillion in cuts over 10 years, the proposal would not bring the budget into balance because of the lost tax revenue and higher spending on other programs.” The 2019 budget proposal also includes $9.2 billion added after Congress lifted mandatory spending caps. “But the 2019 budget might not be as steady as it seems, because the White House is calling for the creation of three new institutes within the NIH. They include a National Institute for Research on Safety and Quality, which would replace the $324-million Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Trump plan would also transfer the National Institute of Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research from the HHS’s Administration for Community Living, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to the NIH from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).” The plan also includes a cap for how much salary a scientist can draw from an NIH grant (90%), gives NIH an additional $750 million for research towards the opioid crisis ($400 million of which must “be spent on public-private partnerships to develop new treatments”). Unfortunately, this proposed budget significantly weakens public health preparedness and response plans with a 43% reduction in the CDC’s Public Health Preparedness and Response Program. Furthermore, it includes hitting the CDC hard with a 12% reduction and plans to move the strategic national stockpile (SNS) to ASPR. Such plans severely impact global health security as funding for the GHSA is expected to drop. You can read a further overview on the health security outlook by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security here. There has also been increasing concern regarding the lack of a nominee for the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, especially since the de facto advisor is a 31-year-old political science major from Princeton

GMU Schar School MS Open House
Don’t miss out on our information session next week. This is a great chance to chat with faculty about the GMU Biodefense MS program (both online and in person). “The session will provide an overview of our master’s degree programs, an introduction to our world-class faculty and research, and highlights of the many ways we position our students for success in the classroom and beyond. Our admissions and student services staff will be on hand to answer your questions.” FYI – GMU biodefense students are making headlines for their dedication and passion for health security, come join the nerdom!

Next Generation Global Health Security Mentorship Program
Interested in becoming a mentor  or protege in health security? The NextGen Global Health Security Mentorship Program is a great way to build partnerships and collaborations for those passionate about health security. “The NextGen Global Health Security (NGGHS) Mentorship Program is an annual program aimed at connecting early to mid-career professional and students interested in global health security with experts in the field to enhance professional development. Mentors and Protégés are free to establish a program that suits them best. Meetings can be based on current events, suggested topics and/or other common areas of interest. The pair will maintain correspondence either in person, over the phone or by email, as often as they have decided feasible.” If you’re a GMU biodefense alum, also make sure to update your information in Stay Connected so you’ll get the latest in biodefense program news and opportunities!

The Anniversary of Kim Jong Nam’s VX Assassination
February 13th marked the one-year anniversary of the assassination of Kim Jong Un’s half brother at the Kuala Lumpur airport. Kim Jong Nam was attacked by two women who smeared VX nerve agent on his face. “The women claim they were tricked into believing they were part of a reality show, but the U.S. and South Korea say the murder was orchestrated by Pyongyang. The brazen killing came as North Korea was starting to accelerate its missile tests and countries around the world came under mounting pressure to enforce ever-tightening U.N. sanctions against Pyongyang.” In the wake of the attack, Malaysia is working to distance itself from its previously close relationship with Pyongyang. The murder trial, which started in October of 2017, is set to end in March of this year, with the two women maintaining their innocence. 

Biosafety Failures in UK Lab
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) released findings from their investigations into more than 40 “mishaps” at specialist labs from 2015-2017. The labs were run by hospitals, private companies, and Public Health England (PHE), which reveals an unfortunate trend across many sectors. “One scientist at a PHE laboratory became sick after contracting Shigella, a highly contagious bacterial infection that causes most cases of dysentery in Britain. The incident led the HSE to send the agency an enforcement letter to improve its health and safety practices.” Incidents range from failure to communicate safety requirements for mailing samples to airflow failures and lab workers acquiring illnesses from lab safety mishaps.

Antimicrobial Resistance: Forging A New Strategy Against An Old Threat
GMU Biodefense students love all things health security and that includes antimicrobial resistance. PhD student Saskia Popescu is tackling the woefully insufficient response we’ve had over the years to this growing threat. Pointing to current challenges, initiatives, and research strategies, Popescu discusses current trends and hopeful plans to combat AMR. “What is to be done? There are several initiatives, like the Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator (CARB-X), that seek to infuse life into the research and development of new drugs. There is also a push on health care providers and agriculture to reduce the use of antimicrobials. But these are all long-term solutions that may take years or decades to implement. Although long-term plans are critical, if you were hospitalized today with a highly resistant infection, what would be the short-term plan of action your heath care providers would take?”

ABSA Risk Group Database App
Check out the latest Risk Group Database resource (and app!) from the Association for Biosafety and Biosecurity (ABSA) International. “In many countries, including the United States, infectious agents are categorized in risk groups based on their relative risk. Depending on the country and/or organization, this classification system might take the following factors into consideration: pathogenicity of the organism, mode of transmission and host range, availability of effective preventive measures (e.g., vaccines), availability of effective treatment (e.g., antibiotics), and other factors.”

Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense Receives Grant to Advance Leadership and Reduce Catastrophic Risk
“The Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense announced today a $2.5 million grant from the Open Philanthropy Project. The grant allows the Panel to continue its leadership role in assessing our nation’s biodefense, issuing recommendations and advocating for their implementation, and identifying viable avenues for needed change to policy. The grant comes amidst heightened global tensions as North Korea and other regimes seek to develop biological weapons. It also arrives on the 100th anniversary of a catastrophic influenza pandemic that took the lives of millions around the world, a stark reminder of the dangers of biological events.”

Stories You May Have Missed:

  • DHS Announces Finalists in $300k Biothreat Prize Competition –  “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate (S&T), in collaboration with the Office of Health Affairs National Biosurveillance Integration Center (NBIC), today announced five finalists for Stage 1 of the Hidden Signals Challenge. The challenge calls for the design of an early warning system that uses existing data to uncover emerging biothreats. The announcement was made at the American Society for Microbiology’s 2018 ASM Biothreats meeting.”
  • Seoul Virus Transmission – Have a pet rat at home? Make sure to practice safe rodent handling and hand hygiene as physicians are seeing cases of rodent-to-human transmission of Seoul virus. “After confirming Seoul virus infection in the Wisconsin patients, the CDC and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services investigated the source of the disease. ‘The outbreak spread from sales or trade of infected pet rats between people’s homes or between ratteries’ – places where rats are bred – ‘in 11 states,’ said Kerins, who coauthored the report.”

Thank you for reading the Pandora Report. If you would like to share any biodefense news, events, or stories, please contact our Editor Saskia Popescu (biodefense@gmu.edu) or via Twitter: @PandoraReport