Pandora Report: 1.20.2023

Happy (almost) Lunar New Year! This week we are covering several updates, including China’s COVID-19 cases and fatalities, a new GAO report on HHS’ oversight of high-risk research, and more. We also have several new publications this week, an interesting podcast episode on PPE, and plenty of newly-launched resources and open opportunities later on in the issue.

China Calims 60K COVID-19 Deaths as Lunar New Year Travel Surges

This week, China said it has recorded nearly 60,000 deaths linked to COVID-19 since lifting Zero COVID restrictions last month, up from the 37 it previously claimed had died since December 7. Previously, the country had reported just over 5,000 COVID-19 deaths in total since the initial outbreak of the disease in Wuhan in late 2019. The New York Times explains this, writing “Until Saturday, China had reported a total of just 5,272 Covid deaths since the pandemic began in the city of Wuhan in late 2019. That measure was narrowly defined as deaths from pneumonia or respiratory failure caused by Covid. The new figure released Saturday included those who had Covid, but also died from other underlying illnesses.”

Reuters explains this figure further, writing “China recorded 59,938 Covid-related deaths from Dec. 8 to Jan. 12, Jiao Yahui, an official with China’s National Health Commission, said at a news conference in Beijing. That figure included 5,503 people who died of respiratory failure directly caused by Covid. Another 54,435 fatalities were linked to other underlying illnesses, Ms. Jiao said.” Reuters also notes that Jiao claims China was unable to release this information sooner because it “required a comprehensive examination of hospital reporting.”

It remains unclear whether or not China has changed the way it counts COVID-19 deaths so that it includes those with underlying conditions that contributed to their death from COVID-19. Furthermore, many are still skeptical of these numbers, and concerns about a further spike amid holiday travel persist. Combined with other factors like the economic impact this has had in China, and attempts to stamp out online discourse about the Party’s handling of the pandemic by blocking “fake information” that would cause a “gloomy sentiment”, this troubling situation is continuing to evolve.

Russia Announces Criminal Case Against Unnamed US Citizen Accused of Espionage Related to “Biological Topics”

Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) announced this week it has opened a case against a US citizen, citing allegations of “…engaging in “espionage” related to “biological topics.” According to The Guardian, ““The American is suspected of collecting intelligence information in the biological sphere, directed against the security of the Russian Federation,” it added, without any further details.” Reuters reports that “The U.S. State Department said it was aware of the “unconfirmed reports” that Russia has opened a criminal case against a U.S. citizen on suspicion of espionage.” Reuters continued, writing “We’re looking into this matter and we’ll continue to monitor,” State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel told reporters on Thursday….Patel added Russia does not generally abide by obligations to provide timely notification of the detention of U.S. citizens in Russia.”

New GAO Report–“Public Health Preparedness: HHS Could Improve Oversight of Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released this report discussing its study reviewing the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) oversight policies and programs (“the Framework”). The report indicates that “GAO found that HHS’s Framework does not fully meet the key elements of effective oversight identified in past work. For example, the Framework does not provide a standard to help funding agencies interpret what “reasonably anticipated” means. Until HHS develops and documents such a standard, the Framework allows for subjective and potentially inconsistent interpretations of the requirement—leaving HHS without assurance the department is reviewing all necessary research proposals.”

The report, available here, discusses the GAO study and findings at length. It concludes with three recommendations–1) “The Secretary of Health and Human Services should work with HHS funding agencies to develop and document a standard for “reasonably anticipated” to ensure consistency in identifying research for departmental review that is “reasonably anticipated to create, transfer or use enhanced potential pandemic pathogens,”; 2) “The Secretary of Health and Human Services should work with HHS funding agencies to identify and share non-sensitive information with researchers, Congress, and the public about the departmental review process for research involving enhanced potential pandemic pathogens, including information on composition and expertise of those involved in the review process and how the evaluation criteria are applied,” and 3) “As HHS and CDC deliberate any changes to the DSAT program, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should assess and document the risk posed by the limitations of the existing DSAT exemptions for public health emergencies and seek legislative authority as needed.”

“This photograph depicts a microbiologist in what had been the Influenza Branch at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), while she was conducting an experiment inside a negatively-pressurized biological safety cabinet (BSC) within the Biosafety Level 3-enhanced laboratory. The airflow into the BSC helps prevent any airborne virus particles from escaping the confines of the cabinet, and as part of her personal protective equipment (PPE), she was wearing a powered air purifying respirator (PAPR), which was filtering the air that she was breathing.”| Credit: CDC PHIL

No More Biowordscramble–NIST Releases Bioeconomy Lexicon

Biosecurity, bioenergy, bioinspired, biorisk…If you have ever started to feel like the new trend in security jargon is adding “bio” to an already existing word, this one is for you. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently released its bioeconomy lexicon as directed in the Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy. NIST explains the need for this, writing “Biotechnology and biomanufacturing are increasingly vital to the global economy, including in the health care, food and agriculture, and energy sectors. Accordingly, there is a need for standardized terms and definitions to ensure a common understanding of the concepts, data, technical developments, and workforce opportunities as the bioeconomy grows both domestically and internationally.”

They continue by explaining the creation of the lexicon: “This initial lexicon was developed by NIST in consultation with an interagency working group consisting of several U.S. government departments and agencies as directed in the Executive Order noted above, and reflects consideration of relevant domestic and international definitions as well as those from private sector stakeholders. The lexicon harmonizes a base set of terms and definitions with the goal of helping to enable the development of measurements and measurement methods for the bioeconomy that support uses such as economic measurement, risk assessments, and the application of machine learning and other artificial intelligence tools. This lexicon is intended to be a living document, and NIST intends to periodically engage with government and private sector stakeholders to inform future updates to the lexicon terms and definitions as appropriate.”

“Assessing the Trajectory of Biological Research and Development in the Russian Federation”

In this piece for Joint Forces Quarterly, Dr. Gigi Kwik Gronvall and Aurelia Attal-Juncqua offer an overview of the Soviet and Russian biological weapons programs and insight into concerns about current Russian research today. Using information from a two-round Delphi study, they discuss their findings related to “Concerns About Management, Biosecurity, and Biosafety of Dual-Use Research of Concern in the Russian Federation” and “Current State of Biotech and Biological R&D in the Russian Federation.” They conclude with a number of observations and recommendations, including insight into how science diplomacy with Russia may be harmed, writing “Historically, science diplomacy has been a useful tool to keep communication lines open when security relations are fraught and has led to positive outcomes for both science and national security. However, Russia’s invasion of the sovereign Ukrainian nation makes any bilateral engagements between the United States and Russia unconscionable at this time. These actions are unlikely to be forgotten or forgiven swiftly, and sanctions are likely to persist for some time. Eventually, at an undetermined point in the future, such engagements will certainly again prove to be important for national security and scientific advancement.”

“The Myth of the “Poor Man’s Atomic Bomb”: Knowledge, Method, and Ideology in the Study of Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear Weapons”

Check out Biejan Poor Toulabi’s interesting recent article in the Journal of Global Security Studies. Abstract: “Chemical and biological weapons (CBWs) have often been characterized as a “poor man’s atomic bomb”: a cheap and easy to acquire alternative to nuclear weapons that is particularly appealing to so-called Third World states. This idea is also reflected in Western government and expert estimates that have long exaggerated the spread of CBWs, especially among states in the Global South. In this article, I break down the ways in which the idea that the spread of CBWs is prevalent and that it primarily happens among states in the Global South has come to exist and persist. By dissecting an oft-cited dataset on CBW spread, I unravel frequently occurring methodological flaws—such as conceptual confusion, misinterpretation of sources, and a bias toward proliferation charges originating from the US government—that breed and sustain inflated estimates and faulty allegations. Subsequently, I show that a dominant cognitive framework that centers on the metaphorical use of the terms “proliferation” and “poor man’s atomic bomb” primes analysts and policymakers to interpret the history and future of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons as being characterized by inevitable spread, particularly among the non-Western “Other.” In conclusion, I offer ways to counter the orthodoxies of this ideology in teaching, research, and policy.”

RevCon Reports 16 and 17

CBW Events’ BioWeapons Prevention Project recently released its RevCon Report 16 and RevCon Report 17, concluding their coverage of the recent BWC Review Conference. Report 16 discusses the final day of the conference and offers reflections on RevCon as a whole. Report 17 provides an outline and discussion of the content of the Final Document. Richard Guthrie also includes discussion of what the Final Document lacks, writing “As well as what would normally be part II of the Final Document, noted above, there were a number of other elements missing. Perhaps the most significant is any substance on the processes that will be established for the review of S&T developments and the promotion of international cooperation under Article X. Other aspects which have had broad support ended up being removed in an attempt to reach consensus included creation of an Article VII database, endorsement of the Tianjin Guidelines, and any reference to gender issues.”

“118th Congress: Bioeconomy and Health Security”

In this piece for the Federation of American Scientists,  Michael A. Fisher, Sruthi Katakam and Maeve Skelly discuss opportunities the 118th Congress has to adopt policies that “help drive U.S. biotech and biomanufacturing to grow regional prosperity, deliver on conservation goals, and improve U.S. competitiveness and resilience.” They offer several ideas for improving competitiveness in the bioeconomy, safeguarding the country against biological threats, and several recommendations for appropriations. An especially interesting portion is that which is dedicated to countering global malnutrition to enhance US security, in which they write “Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, environmental impacts, and conflicts like the war in Ukraine, global rates of malnutrition are at eight percent and are forecast to become even worse. Providing life-saving treatment around the world serves a core American value of humanitarianism, and a priority for U.S. national security – the newly released National Security Strategy dedicates an entire section to food insecurity.”

In 2021 legislation, Congress directed USAID to advance programs to prevent and treat malnutrition around the world and develop a Global Nutrition Coordination Plan. That legislation also directed USAID to create the Nutrition Leadership Council, which can help elevate nutrition programs across U.S. global health interventions and foster collaboration with other sectors, development agencies, partner governments, and local actors. These are important steps to create a centralized food security program with harmonized funding – a system to deploy a more effective response to end global malnutrition and improve U.S. national security.”

“Congress should work with the Administration to begin scaling up global malnutrition assistance in FY 2024, in accord with the 2021 legislation.”

“‘Shot In The Arm’ Shows How Disinformation Can Be Deadly”

Dr. Lipi Roy discusses Shot in the Arm, a film that recently premiered at the Palm Spring International Film Festival, in this piece for Forbes. In it, she covers core elements of the film and how it contributes to the broader conversation surrounding vaccine hesitancy and disinformation going on today, consulting experts like Dr. Peter Hotez along the way. She writes in part, “Health-related misinformation can be deadly, and we must actively combat it. Healthcare professionals need to partner with finance, fashion, sports, media and entertainment industries to promote vaccines and science in general. Celebs like Hugh Jackman, Gayle King and Julia Roberts proudly – and publicly – promoted their Covid-19 vaccinations. I also believe that a politicized problem needs a political response: elected officials – guided by health experts – need to create policies to protect the public, as they did with seatbelts, air bags and bike helmets. Lastly, people who actively promote lies about science and medicine need to be held accountable. As a physician, if I lied to patients and withheld lifesaving treatments for their thyroid cancer or lupus, I would lose my medical license. Similar punitive action must be applied to people who actively propagate egregious lies about YOUR health and safety. Shot in the Arm is really the kick in the pants we ALL need to preserve the sanctity of science and protect the most vulnerable among us. Go see this film.”

What We’re Listening To 🎧

PPE Breaches: Understanding the Risks and How to Respond 

“On the podcast episode “NETEC Guidance on Breach of PPE,” five NETEC [National Emerging Special Pathogens Training and Education Center] experts in personal protective equipment (PPE) talked about breaches in PPE and the importance of preparing health care workers to assess the risks and safely respond to a breach.”

One Health Approach for Effective Biodefense and Global Health Security

“The National Academy of Engineering’s Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable will convene a webinar on January 24 from 1-2 P.M. ET to discuss the latest National Biodefense Strategy and Implementation Plan. Discussions will focus on the collaborative and transdisciplinary ‘One Health’ approach, per the Plan, for effective biodefense and global health security. Speakers (below) will explore the role of cross-sectoral partnerships as well as innovative approaches to achieve the goals and objectives outlined in the Strategy.” Learn more and register here.

National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) Meeting

The next NSABB meeting will take place virtually on January 27 at 1 pm EST. This meeting will cover “Draft Findings: Ensuring Biosecurity Oversight Frameworks Keep Pace with the Future of Science.” Learn more and register here.

Special Call for Papers-Journal of Science Policy & Governance

The Journal of Science Policy & Governance recently announced a special call for papers “and competition to provide policymakers with a new perspective on how scientific expertise could be useful to the complex brew of 21st foreign policy and national security challenges, resulting in a special issue on Policy and Governance on Science, Technology and Global Security.” The journal invites “students, post-doctoral researchers, policy fellows, early career researchers and young professionals from around the world to submit op-eds, policy position papers and other articles addressing foreign policy and national security challenges. These include concerns about the use of nuclear or radiological weapons driven by the war in the Ukraine, hypersonic weapons, immigration driven by climate change, and emerging threats in cybersecurity and biosecurity.” The deadline for submission is April 30.

Additionally, there will be a science policy writing workshop on January 30 in addition to two webinars on February 20 and March 30 (one on Policy and Governance on Science and Technology and one on Foreign Policy and National Security, respectively) to help prospective authors prepare their submissions. Learn more about these events and register here.

Closing the Knowledge Gaps

“BIO-ISAC, in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security and Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory, will host a one-day event (with remote participation available) on January 24, 2023.”

“This gathering of thought leaders across the industry and its partners will address knowledge gaps about the bioeconomy itself. The event is expected to deliver recommendations that demonstrate the scope and breadth of industry impacts, identify specific safety needs and goals, and carve the path forward for a secure future.” Learn more and register here.

Novel Applications of Science and Technology to Address Emerging Chemical and Biological Threats

For the first time since 2019, this Gordon Research Conference is back, this time in sunny Ventura, CA. “The Chemical and Biological Defense GRC is a premier, international scientific conference focused on advancing the frontiers of science through the presentation of cutting-edge and unpublished research, prioritizing time for discussion after each talk and fostering informal interactions among scientists of all career stages. The conference program includes a diverse range of speakers and discussion leaders from institutions and organizations worldwide, concentrating on the latest developments in the field. The conference is five days long and held in a remote location to increase the sense of camaraderie and create scientific communities, with lasting collaborations and friendships. In addition to premier talks, the conference has designated time for poster sessions from individuals of all career stages, and afternoon free time and communal meals allow for informal networking opportunities with leaders in the field.” The conference will be held March 19-24, 2023. Learn more and apply here by February 19.

Call for Participants: Assess Biosafety and Biosecurity Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens of Pandemic Potential

Kathleen Vogel and David Gillum of Arizona State University are conducting a research project to “…understand how dual use research of concern and pathogens of pandemic potential are regulated and how biosafety and biosecurity of this work is implemented, and if there are opportunities to improve the long-term benefits and minimize risks associated with this scientific work.” Their study includes a survey on this topic, which is accepting responses through January 27. Learn more and take the 20-25 minute survey here.

Notice of Funding Opportunity: Evidence-based Approaches to Implementing Biosafety in Diagnostic and Research Laboratories

This opportunity is offered by the Elizabeth R. Griffin Program at Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security. Stakeholders can review this funding opportunity and submit applications here. Applications are due February 28.

Wilson Center Launches International Cooperation for Pandemic Preparedness Website

“As the COVID-19 pandemic enters its fourth year, the Wilson Center’s Science and Technology Innovation Program and the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law at Georgetown University Law Center launched a new website today to address the changing paradigms in international health law and the critical need for strengthening global health security for the future.”

“This dynamic website, International Cooperation for Pandemic Preparedness, features renowned international health experts who break down eight critical issues the pandemic exacerbated, revealed, or created. Through video interviews and written analyses, the interactive examines what can happen at the international level when countries and international organizations work together to find needed solutions. In light of heightened demands for a pandemic treaty under the World Health Organization, expert advice on what is achievable at the international level has never been more critical to combating future COVID-19 variants and future pandemics.”

Weekly Trivia Question

You read the Pandora Report every week and now it’s time for you to show off what you know! The first person to send the correct answer to biodefense@gmu.edu will get a shout out in the following issue (first name last initial). For this week, our question is “In 1985, an American extremist group’s compound was raided by more than 300 law enforcement officers from several federal, state, and local agencies following a three-day standoff. Among other items, officers seized about thirty gallons of potassium cyanide the group intended to use to poison water supplies of several cities. What was the name of this group?”

Shout out to Tracy S. for winning last week’s trivia! The correct answer to “In 1980, a Frenchman entered a cave while visiting Mount Elgon National Park, Kenya. A week later he became seriously ill, eventually dying in a Nairobi hospital. Which cave did he enter and what disease killed him?” is Kitum Cave and Marburg virus disease.

Pandora Report: 4.10.2020

National Security in the Age of Pandemics
This week, Dr. Gregory Koblentz, Director of the Biodefense Program, and Dr. Michael Hunzeker, Associate Director of the Center for Security Policy Studies, published a commentary asserting that pandemic preparedness cannot be improved if it becomes another item on the military’s infinite laundry list of missions and threats. The COVID-19 outbreak on the USS Theodore Roosevelt forced the ship’s commander to temporarily scale back operations it so that its crew could isolate themselves and later resume their duties after subduing the infection. Now, the USS Ronald Reagan is reporting positive COVID-19 cases and may have no option but to follow the lead of the Roosevelt. These events are warnings to our national security apparatus that pandemic diseases are clear and present threat to our Nation and her allies and interests. Koblentz and Hunzeker urge the US to recognize this threat and adjust to it with urgency and intensity. For more, Koblentz and Hunzeker’s article is available here.

Summer Workshop on Pandemics, Bioterrorism, and Global Health Security 
Are you registered for the summer workshop yet? From July 13-16, 2020, GMU Biodefense will be hosting a three and a half-day workshop on all things global health security. Leaders in the field will be discussing hot topics like COVID-19, pandemic preparedness, vaccine development, medical countermeasures, synthetic biology, and healthcare response to COVID-19. This is also a great networking opportunity as past participants come from a range of government agencies, NGOs, universities, think tanks, and foreign countries. Don’t miss out on the early-bird discount for this immersive workshop – you can register here.

Syria’s Chemical Weapons Attacks
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) published its First Report by the Investigation and Identification Team, which strongly linked the Syrian government to the March 2017 sarin and chlorine attacks on a rebel town. Specifically, in March 2017, three projectiles – two containing sarin and one containing chlorine – were dropped from aircraft of the Syrian Arab Air Force into Ltamenah in northern Syria. In total, these weapons affected at least 106 individuals. The Washington Post reported on these findings and our own Dr. Gregory Koblentz, Director of the Biodefense Program, stated that strong evidence for attribution is the first concrete step toward punishing such violations of international laws and agreements. The OPCW is not a judicial body with the ability to determine and punish criminal acts, so action must be taken by the Executive Council and the Conference of the States Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, the United Nations Secretary-General, and the international community. The full report is available here.

Smartphones and Contact Tracing
Contact tracing is a vital piece to not only public health response, but also helping “reopen” the country (keep reading for more insight into this). Unfortunately, it’s quite time and resource intensive and with widespread transmission and not enough public health resources, this can limit our capabilities. Some countries though, are looking to employe technology into contact tracing – “In Singapore, a country that’s turned to cellphone contact tracing, an app called TraceTogether uses Bluetooth to log when a user’s phone encounters another phone that has the app. If someone tests positive for COVID-19, he or she can easily submit a log of all the other people (and their phones) that he or she came in contact with in the last 21 days.” GMU’s HyunJung Kim has recently discussed this approach in South Korea – noting that “The disclosure of epidemic information is very significant for disease prevention and control, because we experienced the failure of disease control and prevention during the MERS of 2015,” HyunJung Kim, a PhD student in biodefense at George Mason University who has written about Korea’s public health system, says. “Information … makes people more comfortable because they can avoid and detour the areas/hospitals where infected people visited.” On the other hand though, such tech has ethical implications. Kelly Hills, Co-Principal of Rogue Bioethics noted that “We really have to keep our guard up against surveillance technologies that could be abused with very little effort, especially since these technologies are almost always going to be used against our most marginalized communities.” Damien P Williams, PhD candidate in the Department of Science, Technology, and Society at Virginia Tech recently noted that “First and foremost, supposedly anonymized tracking data sits alongside facial recognition as technologies which, in the current formulation of Western society, have no non-oppressive, non-exploitable use. Things developed and deployed in times of heightened fear and concern will very likely become every day violations.” Williams further stated that “Such a tool simply reinforces the trend toward surveillance technologies which are both insidiously abusive and also disproportionately leveraged against already-marginalized communities, as it has been the case with technologies and research in this vein, for literally centuries.” Where do you land on the topic?

Small Groups, Big Weapons: The Nexus of Emerging Tech and WMD Terrorism
A paradigm shift in recent years has seen non-state actors enhance their capabilities to utilize WMDs. A new report from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, is shedding light on the changes to capital, infrastructure, and intellectual capacity that are aiding this shift. “The commercialization of emerging technologies is reducing the financial, intellectual, and material barriers required for WMD development and employment. This report surveys three emerging technologies—synthetic biology, additive manufacturing (commonly known as 3D printing), and unmanned aerial systems—and examines the nexus of each with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons agent proliferation. It examines how non-state actors might use these emerging technologies to overcome traditional barriers against the development and employment of WMD.” You can access the report here.

Inadequate PPE Distribution & Hospital Experiences Responding to COVID-19: A U.S. Survey 
Just how well are hospitals managing the current pandemic? Not well. A survey by the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) across U.S. hospitals from March 23-27, revealed some sobering insight into the challenges of COVID-19 response. 323 hospitals across 46 states chatted with the OIG on this (at least the hospital administrators did…). At a glance, the findings aren’t surprising – severe shortages of testing supplies, extended waits for results, widespread shortage of PPE, challenges maintaining adequate staffing and hospital capacity to treat patients, shortages of critical supplies and materials, and changing/sometimes inconsistent guidance. “Hospitals reported that changing and sometimes inconsistent guidance from Federal, State, and local authorities posed challenges and confused hospitals and the public. Hospitals reported that it was sometimes difficult to remain current with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance and that they received conflicting guidance from different government and medical authorities, including criteria for testing, determining which elective procedures to delay, use of PPE, and getting supplies from the national stockpile. Hospitals also reported concerns that public misinformation has increased hospital workloads (e.g., patients showing up unnecessarily, hospitals needing to do public education) at a critical time.” This is an insightful and telling report about the current challenges hospitals are facing in the U.S., not only in responding to COVID-19, but also preparing for it. Unfortunately, this isn’t the only report regarding inadequate supplies and distribution of PPE and vital medical supplies across the U.S. to various states. A new document has been released from HHS on the insufficient distribution of these critical pieces to healthcare response. “Only 11.7 million N95 respirator masks have been distributed nationwide—less than 1% of the 3.5 billion masks that the Trump Administration estimated would be necessary in the event of a severe pandemic. Only 7,920 ventilators have been distributed from the stockpile, even though a recent survey of 213 mayors—which did not include New York City, Chicago, or Seattle—identified a total estimated need of 139,000 ventilators.” Moreover, the report notes that the Strategic National Stockpile has made its last shipment of PPE for states as it now has 10% left, which will be reserved for federal workers and not distributed to states.

When Can We “Reopen” the U.S.? 
The U.S. has over 427,000 cases and 14,696 deaths related to COVID-19, but many of us have been wondering, when will we be able to go back out to restaurants and congregate in public? The answer though, isn’t so simple and frankly, contingent upon a lot of factors like rapid testing and the ability to do contact tracing. First– “Number one: any given state that’s considering relaxing social distancing should have a demonstrated downward trend in cases over the two weeks prior. And we need to get better at being able to evaluate trend data across the country. Ultimately it would be good to have more data that would allow decision makers to be able to look at neighboring states and make sure they’re congruent with others in the region.” Beyond this and a sustained reduction in cases, we need widespread availability of PPE for healthcare workers. An adequately supplied healthcare infrastructure is critical and we must support healthcare workers as they face an onslaught of cases across the U.S.

Biodefense and Pandemic Policy
With each week, we learn more about ignored messages, red flags, and exercises that shed light on the very real failures in pandemic preparedness/response we are living right now. From the disbanding of the NSC global health security team to the failures in following the 69-page pandemic playbook, there have been several missteps and delays in the administration’s response. “The playbook was designed ‘so there wasn’t piecemeal thinking when trying to fight the next public health battle,’ said one former official who contributed to the playbook, warning that ‘the fog of war’ can lead to gaps in strategies.” Pandemic preparedness is no easy task, but many are looking at previous presidential responses to biological threats as an indicator that what we’re seeing now isn’t ideal. Within the most recent International Affairs journal, there is a reading list regarding global health crises that shed light on behavior norms and response measures during such events. In this collection, you’ll see GMU Biodefense professor and graduate program director Gregory Koblentz’s review of the Obama administration’s strategy for countering biology threats. “This strategy represents a shift in thinking away from the George W. Bush administration’s focus on biodefence, which emphasized preparing for and responding to biological weapon attacks, to the concept of biosecurity, which includes measures to prevent, prepare for and respond to naturally occurring and man-made biological threats.” The current COVID-19 pandemic will be a pivotal moment in biodefense and biosecurity policy, hopefully guiding future efforts and investments into pandemic preparedness.

Student Spotlight: PREDICT-ing the Next Pandemic?
Michael Krug, a second-year student in the Biodefense MS program, November 2019 article highlights the critical need for comprehensive and quick biosurveillance tools to aid in pandemic preparedness. Last week, the decision was made to end USAID’s PREDICT project. PREDICT was established in 2009 to help develop wide-ranging detection capabilities; it was a component of the early-warning system. the project identified 1,200 viruses – including 160 novel coronaviruses – with the potential to induce a pandemic. Beyond identification, the project trained and supported staff across 60 foreign laboratories, such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Krug points out that the dissolution of PREDICT is an unfortunate reversal away from the US goal of slowing the emergence (or reemergence) of infectious diseases. This week, the LA Times reported on the termination of PREDICT, corroborating the echoed Krug’s sentiments and shared the announcement that the PREDICT program was just extended through September so that it can assist in the COVID-19 response.

Why Giving Americans Checks Makes Sense
In response to the March 22 column by Steven Pearlstein stating that providing funds to every American would be a bad idea, you can now read a rebuttal here. Included in this list of respondents is GMU Biodefense professor Sonia Ben Ouagrham-Gormley, who noted that “The plan to send money to every American may not be economically sound in normal circumstances, but it is an appropriate response to the economic hardships caused by this pandemic. And it could help curb the spread of the disease. True, many people will maintain their income, but what about the short-term burden people will face because of the pandemic? What about the employee who already lost her job and needs to care for her children? What about elderly people who have no one to rely on and who cannot stock up on food? These people need cash now to face the additional (temporary) economic burden caused by the epidemic. More important, they need it now to heed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidelines: Stay home for a long enough period to break the transmission chain of the disease.”