Plans to step up bioterrorism research via the NIH...
1
6 NATURE MEDICINE • VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 1 • JANUARY 2002 NEWS Prompted by the recent anthrax scare in the US, the Bush administration is to enhance bioterrorism research pro- grams at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). The initiative arose, in part, from “a recent outpouring of ideas from con- cerned academic and industrial scien- tists on ways to combat potential agents of bioterrorism,” Health and Human Services secretary, Tommy Thompson, said in a statement, adding that the intention is for the NIAID to be able to put many of those new ideas into practice. NIAID director, Anthony Fauci (see page 10), says, “Our offices have been deluged with calls from scientists who want to help. At scientific meetings and conferences I am often approached by researchers with promising ideas and a desire to contribute to the fight against bioterrorism.” NIAID is the main beneficiary of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for bioterrorism and in FY01 received $36 million for this area of in- vestigation from the total $47 million that NIH earmarked for bioterrorism. Prior to 11 September, the President’s FY02 budget requested an increase to $93 million for NIH bioterrorism re- search, of which $81.6 million would go to the NIAID. Those sums are now expected to rise further as a result of the terrorist attacks. Among the areas outlined in the new initiative are increased research into ‘high-priority Category A’ biological diseases, such as anthrax, botulism, plague, smallpox, tularemia and viral hemorrhagic fevers. More research into anthrax vaccines, including what the NIAID views as one of the most promising types, a recombinant pro- tective antigen vaccine. Increased re- search into drug development and diagnostics for bioterrorism pathogens, and more technology grants to enable scientists to either purchase new ge- netic sequencing equipment or to col- laborate with other scientists who have the technology. At the heart of many of the programs is a drive to encourage partner- ships between academia and pharma- ceutical and biotechnology companies. A quicker response to funding applica- tions for bioterrorism research is also promised. The NIAID hopes to reduce decision-making time from the current 9 or 10 months to 6 months after it receives the application. A web page listing new bioterrorism research funding opportunities can be seen at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/bio terrorism/. Marlene Cimons, Washington, D.C. Plans to step up bioterrorism research via the NIH… US government laboratories specializing in infectious disease research are operat- ing on heightened alert in the wake of the anthrax attacks. In the midst of this raised awareness, the country’s Surgeon General, David Satcher, has castigated working conditions at America’s princi- pal public health agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). At a press briefing in Boston last month, Satcher—who was himself director of the CDC from 1993 to 1998—said the nation should be “ashamed” of the CDC’s out-of-date and poorly equipped labs and that the entire public health system urgently needs the major infusion of cash that would be forthcoming from a 15 November bill introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy (Massachusetts-D) and Bill Frist (Tennesse-R). As if to emphasize the material prob- lems facing CDC researchers, a power failure put its main lab in Atlanta out of commission for 15 hours in the early days of the anthrax scare, and on 5 December it was claimed that confirma- tory diagnoses of new cases of West Nile virus were suspended because the CDC was over-stretched with anthrax testing. The CDC is at the center of a web of federal public health agencies. C.J. Peters, former Head of the Special Pathogens Branch at the CDC and now director of a new Bioterrorism Institute at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, says, “In the case of anthrax, the patient diagnostic sam- ples, nose and environmental swabs should have been sent to [other labora- tories]. Only the most important agents, such as the spore powder, should have been tested by CDC.” Peters says that one reason the work was not triaged out is that, “State health departments are under-equipped, and we as a nation are not ready to deal with bioterrorism.” CDC spokesperson Lisa Swenarski insists that only one West Nile sample was delayed and this did not affect the patient’s treatment. Of the CDC’s $4.1 billion FY01 bud- get, $182 million is assigned to bioter- rorism research. HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis tops the list with $1 billion in funding. The Kennedy–Frist bill (Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001 (S 1715)) would provide $3.2 billion to fund a variety of measures related to ter- rorism, including food protection, transportation and vaccine production. In addition, it proposes to increase funding for state and local public health agencies by $50 million to $420 mil- lion. Richard Feachem, director of the Institute for Global Health, a joint insti- tute of UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco and Stanford University, comments that even though the CDC is “the envy of the world” in terms of public health institutions, it mirrors the imbalance in public health funding worldwide: total healthcare in the US costs $1.3 trillion yet the CDC’s $4 billion budget is only a minuscule proportion of that. Potter Wickware, San Francisco …and at the CDC Faculty demands AIDS drugs for all South African medical education lead- ers have broken their silence and is- sued a public statement directly attacking their government’s policy on AIDS. In the statement, released early December, the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Witwatersrand (UW) in Johannesburg called on the government to acknowl- edge that HIV causes AIDS and imme- diately enact measures to respond to the crisis. South African universities have not undertaken such a public role in protesting government policy since © 2002 Nature Publishing Group http://medicine.nature.com
Transcript of Plans to step up bioterrorism research via the NIH...
6 NATURE MEDICINE • VOLUME 8 • NUMBER 1 • JANUARY 2002
NEWS
Prompted by the recent anthrax scarein the US, the Bush administration isto enhance bioterrorism research pro-grams at the National Institute ofAllergy and Infectious Diseases(NIAID).
The initiative arose, in part, from “arecent outpouring of ideas from con-cerned academic and industrial scien-tists on ways to combat potentialagents of bioterrorism,” Health andHuman Services secretary, TommyThompson, said in a statement, addingthat the intention is for the NIAID tobe able to put many of those new ideasinto practice.
NIAID director, Anthony Fauci (seepage 10), says, “Our offices have beendeluged with calls from scientists whowant to help. At scientific meetingsand conferences I am often approachedby researchers with promising ideasand a desire to contribute to the fightagainst bioterrorism.”
NIAID is the main beneficiary ofNational Institutes of Health (NIH)funding for bioterrorism and in FY01received $36 million for this area of in-vestigation from the total $47 millionthat NIH earmarked for bioterrorism.Prior to 11 September, the President’sFY02 budget requested an increase to$93 million for NIH bioterrorism re-search, of which $81.6 million wouldgo to the NIAID. Those sums are nowexpected to rise further as a result ofthe terrorist attacks.
Among the areas outlined in the newinitiative are increased research into‘high-priority Category A’ biologicaldiseases, such as anthrax, botulism,plague, smallpox, tularemia and viralhemorrhagic fevers. More research intoanthrax vaccines, including what theNIAID views as one of the mostpromising types, a recombinant pro-tective antigen vaccine. Increased re-search into drug development anddiagnostics for bioterrorism pathogens,and more technology grants to enablescientists to either purchase new ge-netic sequencing equipment or to col-laborate with other scientists who havethe technology.
At the heart of many of the programsis a drive to encourage partner-ships between academia and pharma-ceutical and biotechnology companies.A quicker response to funding applica-
tions for bioterrorism research is alsopromised. The NIAID hopes to reduce decision-making time from the current9 or 10 months to 6 months after it receives the application. A web page
listing new bioterrorism research funding opportunities can be seen at http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/bioterrorism/.Marlene Cimons, Washington, D.C.
Plans to step up bioterrorism research via the NIH…
US government laboratories specializingin infectious disease research are operat-ing on heightened alert in the wake ofthe anthrax attacks. In the midst of thisraised awareness, the country’s SurgeonGeneral, David Satcher, has castigatedworking conditions at America’s princi-pal public health agency, the Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention(CDC).
At a press briefing in Boston lastmonth, Satcher—who was himself director of the CDC from 1993 to1998—said the nation should be“ashamed” of the CDC’s out-of-date and poorly equipped labs and that theentire public health system urgentlyneeds the major infusion of cash thatwould be forthcoming from a 15November bill introduced by SenatorsEdward Kennedy (Massachusetts-D) andBill Frist (Tennesse-R).
As if to emphasize the material prob-lems facing CDC researchers, a powerfailure put its main lab in Atlanta out ofcommission for 15 hours in the earlydays of the anthrax scare, and on 5December it was claimed that confirma-tory diagnoses of new cases of West Nilevirus were suspended because the CDCwas over-stretched with anthrax testing.
The CDC is at the center of a web offederal public health agencies. C.J.Peters, former Head of the SpecialPathogens Branch at the CDC and nowdirector of a new Bioterrorism Instituteat the University of Texas MedicalBranch in Galveston, says, “In the caseof anthrax, the patient diagnostic sam-
ples, nose and environmental swabsshould have been sent to [other labora-tories]. Only the most important agents,such as the spore powder, should havebeen tested by CDC.”
Peters says that one reason the workwas not triaged out is that, “State healthdepartments are under-equipped, andwe as a nation are not ready to deal withbioterrorism.” CDC spokesperson LisaSwenarski insists that only one WestNile sample was delayed and this did notaffect the patient’s treatment.
Of the CDC’s $4.1 billion FY01 bud-get, $182 million is assigned to bioter-rorism research. HIV/AIDS andtuberculosis tops the list with $1 billionin funding. The Kennedy–Frist bill(Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2001(S 1715)) would provide $3.2 billion tofund a variety of measures related to ter-rorism, including food protection,transportation and vaccine production.In addition, it proposes to increasefunding for state and local public healthagencies by $50 million to $420 mil-lion.
Richard Feachem, director of theInstitute for Global Health, a joint insti-tute of UC Berkeley, UC San Franciscoand Stanford University, commentsthat even though the CDC is “the envyof the world” in terms of public healthinstitutions, it mirrors the imbalance inpublic health funding worldwide: totalhealthcare in the US costs $1.3 trillionyet the CDC’s $4 billion budget is only aminuscule proportion of that.
Potter Wickware, San Francisco
…and at the CDC
Faculty demands AIDS drugs for allSouth African medical education lead-ers have broken their silence and is-sued a public statement directlyattacking their government’s policy onAIDS. In the statement, released earlyDecember, the Faculty of HealthSciences at the University of
Witwatersrand (UW) in Johannesburgcalled on the government to acknowl-edge that HIV causes AIDS and imme-diately enact measures to respond tothe crisis. South African universitieshave not undertaken such a public rolein protesting government policy since
©20
02 N
atu
re P
ub
lish
ing
Gro
up
h
ttp
://m
edic
ine.
nat
ure
.co
m
