Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat

Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat - Milton Leitenberg. US Army Strategic Studies Institute monograph, December 2005. It is nearly 15 years since biological weapons (BW) have become a significant national security preoccupation. This occurred primarily due to circumstances occurring within a short span of years. First was the official U.S. Government suggestion that proliferation of offensive BW programs among states and even terrorist groups was an increasing trend; second was the discovery, between 1989 and 1992, that the Union USSR had violated the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) since its ratification in 1975 by building a massive covert biological weapons program; third was the corroboration by the UN Special Commission in 1995 that Iraq had maintained a covert biological weapons program since 1974, and had produced and stockpiled large quantities of agents and delivery systems between 1988 and 1991; and, fourth was the discovery, also in 1995, that the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo group, which had carried out the nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway system, also had spent 4 years attempting—albeit unsuccessfully—to produce and disperse two pathogenic biological agents. The distribution of professionally prepared anthrax spores through the U.S. postal system in the weeks afterwards September 11, 2001, magnified previous concerns by orders of magnitude. In December 2002, after U.S. forces had overrun much of the territory of Afghanistan, it was discovered that the al-Qaida organization also had spent several years trying to obtain the knowledge and means to produce biological agents. These new factors shifted the context in which BW was considered almost entirely to “bioterrorism.” Within 4 years, almost $30 billion in federal expenditure was appropriated to counter the anticipated threat. This response took place in the absence of virtually any threat analysis. The purpose of this monograph is to begin to fill that gap.

The Challenge of Biological Terrorism: When to Cry Wolf, What to Cry, and How to Cry It

Quote:

---

...the fact remains, however, that anyone approaching the subject of bioterrorism still has to be extremely careful about "crying wolf." The fact a threat exists does not define the kind of response that is needed, the priority it should be given, and the level of investment in time, expertise, and money that is required. It is all too easy to "cry wolf" in a post-9/11 world, but the risk of biological terrorism is only one more risk among thousands of other risks that affect human society.

Triage is just as essential an element of counterterrorism as it is of medicine and public health policy. In a world where car and truck bombs can kill over 100 people without warning on a crowded street, and where there are so many other competing priorities for government action, one has to be extremely careful about giving any given threat priority over the others, and even more careful about what to call for in terms of public policy. The years since 9/11 have shown that it is far easier to throw money at a problem than it is to solve one, and it is far easier to focus noisily on the worst case than it is to produce credible risk assessments...

---

Threats Watch, 10 Mar 08: Focusing on the "Right" Biological Threat

Quote:

---

There is an on-going debate about the threat of bio-terrorism and the roles that natural or manmade biologicals might play. Some believe that the attention being paid to man-made pathogens (or the so-called “designer” pathogens) is misplaced and leaves the greater population open to a greater threat, those from the natural world.

So, has the preoccupation with artificial microbes created a situation in which the government has focused more on a broad-spectrum approach to immunity instead of a “one-bug-one-drug” approach? How real is the threat posed by these synthetic germs? According to Michael Kurilla, the Director of Office of Biodefense Research Affairs at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, ‘Mother Nature is the most dangerous terrorist. The microbial world is almost unlimited in its [terrorist] potential.”

However, despite the emergence of new diseases like SARS and the H5N1 bird flu (pandemic flu), he is also concerned about the threat caused by developments in synthetic biology and the possibility that either rogue scientists or bio-terrorists could duplicate some of this laboratory work and use the product(s) against society.....

---

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 23 May 08: The Expanding Range of Biowarfare Threats

Quote:

---

Scientists are developing new substances at the cross section of biology and chemistry--such as peptide bioregulators--that could be used to incapacitate and kill. These substances defy the typical biochemical threat spectrum that includes microbial pathogens such as the anthrax bacterium and toxins such as botulinum. In The Body’s Own Bioweapons, Jonathan B. Tucker, a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, documents this research and its impact on existing arms controls. Below, Tucker and his three fellow discussants continue the debate about the impact of these new lethal and incapacitating agents and suggest ways to discourage their development....

---

Quote:

---

Mother Nature is the most dangerous terrorist. The microbial world is almost unlimited in its [terrorist] potential

---

Bioengineering pathogens is at the extremes of our abilities (man’s that is) we have recently 'created life' from scratch for the first time. This was a fairly big deal but all we did was manufacture some DNA to match that of another organism, we do not know enough to make even minor changes to the genetic sequence and be able to predict the effects. The money thrown at bio-terrorism has had two effects (well three if you include that it was diverted from some where it might have done more good) firstly it has probably increased the threat to US citizens from dangerous biological agents by vastly increasing the number of US labs licensed to work with dangerous pathogens. There has, naturally enough, been a commensurate increase in the number of lab accidents, researchers infected etc. (link to post on Texas A&M University lab failures that eventually made the CDC do something). The second, and beneficial effect, of bio-terrorism research has been the fact that a lot of it is dual use and could be of genuine benefit in what is the far greater, and very real danger, posed by zoonotic emergence - H5N1 being the poster-boy candidate. In this field, to paraphrase Ex. Sec. Rumsfeld, it is the known unknowns that we should be losing sleep over HIV/AIDS, SARS, Nipah, Ebola/Marburg etc. are all recent zoonotics. None of our (human) communicable diseases was originally a human disease from Yellow fever & Smallpox to cold & flu they have all been acquired by humans from - and since - the domestication of animals.

H5N1 an object lesson.
For the first time in history we have been given forewarning of an impending zoonotic emergence and it is a humbling (humiliating might be closer) lesson in how poor a match our technology is to this very basic virus' ability to mutate away from any solution we may try and develop. HIV is a classical zoonotic pandemic and despite the research effort over a quarter of a century this is the first year in which we may have broken even. A flu pandemic would follow the same course but due to the difference in its transmission method would reach the same point in the pandemic cycle in about three months. We have no vaccines and no likelihood of producing any in the foreseeable future, we have one antiviral (Tamiflu) that has shown some usefulness (not a cure but can reduce symptoms) but resistance is rapidly developing in seasonal flu and most epidemiological models show this becoming the norm early in a pandemic. Here is an enemy that is a truly worthy advisory only full scale nuclear war can come close to matching its potential for destruction of our cosy human existence.
Y’all have a nice day now.

Officer.com, 26 May 08: Bioterrorist Attack: Fact or Fiction?

Quote:

---

....The point to all this is that by the end of the 2008 fiscal year DHS will have spent $50 billion on defense against bioterrorism attacks. Let's assume for the moment that the biological weapons threat is more fantasy then fact, how much law enforcement and emergency response equipment would State and local police department have bought with that amount of your tax payer dollars? Need updated cruisers, computers, commutations systems and centers, or weapons and ammo for use on your beat? Fifty billion will buy a bunch of that stuff....

....So what exactly have we gotten for all that money? For one thing we have a series of National Centers for study of bioterrorism organisms established at major universities around the country. That sounds good on the surface until you realize that most of these were university research departments that were hurting for grant money and all of a sudden saw a way to keep their research going under the guise of "Bioterrorism prevention".....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

Officer.com, 26 May 08: Bioterrorist Attack: Fact or Fiction?

---

One thing I wonder about the "smaller incidents is simply that as he pretty much describes it could have been worse, just would have required more detailed prep and larger manufacture capabilities. Ummm we know that any robber worth half a darn will test the waters, or scope out the job first. Then comes tha planning.

I guess I just don't buy the don't worry so much about it as you do the responders because unless I'm mistaken those responders and their equipment generally tend to be first in line for effective fire of that type of attack. So you do still have to do everything you can to study the agents themselves.

That said I would agree with the fact that up goes the call for something to be researched and all the sudden everyone and their grandmother are rarin to jump on the band wagon. Maybe the key here is to recognize this and make sure the dang band knows how to play and that your conductors are well trained enough to recognize when the band is stinkin up the place?

Talking to Tom Hammes, a week or so ago, he was extremely concerned with the BIO threat, as a lot of genetic modification work is now becoming more easily accessible.

While I agree with the core of the argument in Dr. Hanson’s ‘Bioterrorist Attack: Fact or Fiction?’ That the $50 billion dollars has largely been wasted it brings up a few questions. Firstly what are these potential bio-weapons. He starts off by discussing Ricin which is not a bio-weapon it is a chemical weapon, and he mentions the film Outbreak which was not about bio-terrorism but about a zoonotics re-emergence event (the only malice was on the part of the US military which had a cure but would not give it to its citizens because of national security considerations and not wanting to admit what it had been up to) and the fact that a Maginot line across the Mexican boarder will not stop much but it will cause a fair bit of re-routing. These may seem minor quibbles but the first two are symptoms of a poor understanding of the bio-weapons threat - the good Dr. should have known better – but the general public do not have the background to understand and are so easily led – or misled. I would class the threat into three groups Major, Minor & Engineered.

I will start with Engineered as this is the nightmare scenario used to scare up funding and is generally useful for getting your agenda through. As a threat it is a non starter as the required technology is all science fiction. What we can do – given a well equipped level 3 or 4 bio lab and access to an existing deadly pathogen – is tinker with its genetic sequence and test the results to see if they make it any more of a super bug. As nature does this all the time and on a much larger scale it is unlikely you will get anything significantly more dangerous that you started with and I can not imagine anyone would bother, if you have the pathogen and were of a mind to use it you would just release it as it is.

Major. This is where you have a highly dangerous communicable disease (1918 H1N1, smallpox) the release is relatively simple (bio-suicide ‘bomber’ spends the day coughing and sneezing at Heathrow) the problem is it is totally untargeted the newly infected could just as easily be on there way to Mecca as Washington. This is more of an extortionist’s weapon (think Bond films).

The Minor has a disproportionate scare effect but is like the anthrax release. This type of weapon has a low CAR (see the quote box for an explanation of terms) so spreads little or not at all, it needs a dispersal mechanism and will normally only infect those directly targeted or those in close contact with this group.

A couple of other misconceptions re testing. I suspect most of the public think when a blood sample is tested it enters some black box procedure which then reports the pathogens found, the reality is you have to guess, based on symptoms, what you are dealing with and test for it if you do not find it you guess again and repeat. If the pathogen is new, or very rare, or only endemic in poor countries (where it is not worth manufacturing a test because they can not afford to use it) you may never find an answer.

If what I have written is true then the key to preventing Major (or Engineered attacks) is to keep the terrorists from getting hold of any of the really dangerous bugs in the first place, so shutting down as many of the new biolabs that are working with these pathogens as possible is the first step. I still think they are a far greater danger as a source of release by accident, mental instability in a lab worker or natural catastrophe – fire, flood, hurricane, tornado and earthquake. (I am glad the Sichuan quake has been burying nuclear-labs not bio-labs).

If you want a low cost bio-terror attack send a bunch of XDR-TB sufferers on a group holiday to Disneyland.

Quote:

---

When considering the epidemiology of infectious disease there are a few terms that are useful
CAR (Clinical Attack Rate) The proportion of those exposed that become clinically ill.
CFR (Case Fatality Rate) The proportion of those clinically ill that die.
Ro (The Reproductive Number) This is the number of people one ill person infects.

If the Ro is less than 1 then the infection will die out, if greater than one you have an epidemic – the higher the number the faster the spread. Each disease has a typical Ro but it is not fixed (the same disease would have a higher Ro in a city than a sparsely populated region).

If you multiply CAR by CFR by population you get total fatalities. For the 1918 flu pandemic CAR was ~30%, CFR was ~2.5%, Ro was ~2.
Ebola & H5N1 have a CFR of > 60%.

---

The Ottawa Citizen, 12 Jul 08: Terrorism is Hard

Review of the book Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear

Quote:

---

.......an interesting discussion of the Aum Shinrikyo "doomsday" cult in Japan. Here was an organization that had an extraordinary amount of money at its disposal, several well-equipped labs and as many as 100 highly-trained scientists, working full-time, dedicated exclusively to the task of figuring out how to inflict mass casualties upon the Japanese population, in an attempt to provoke an apocalyptic war.

Nevertheless, over the course of 17 different attacks, using a range of biological and chemical weapons, they never managed to kill more than a few dozen people. The most "successful" was the 1995 sarin nerve gas attack in the Tokyo subway, which killed 12 people and severely injured another 42.

Many people found this attack terrifying, yet for Gardner, it was also strangely reassuring. After all, it would be difficult to imagine circumstances more propitious for the success of a terrorist plot: "A fanatical cult with a burning desire to inflict mass slaughter has heaps of money, international connections, excellent equipment and laboratories, scientists trained at top-flight universities, and years of near-total freedom to pursue its operations." Yet they came nowhere near accomplishing their ends.

All of this goes to show that even terrorists who get their hands on biological or chemical weapons (or nuclear material, for that matter), are still a long way away from being able to hurt large numbers of people. Yet in August of 2006, 44 per cent of Americans told Gallup that they were "very" or "somewhat" worried that they, or someone in their family, would be a victim of a terrorist attack. This is a phenomenal overestimation of the actual risk.....

---

Quote:

---

NEW DELHI – U.S. officials fear lax security at Indian laboratories could make the facilities targets for terrorists seeking biological weapons to launch attacks across the globe, according to comments in a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable made public Friday.

---

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101217/...lsZWFrc3VzZg--

See also

http://www.upmc-biosecurity.org/webs...ioweapons.html

Preventing and Deterring Biological Attacks: Priorities that Should Emerge From the WMD Commission Report pdf

December 19, 2008
Summary

Quote:

---

The Center for Biosecurity strongly agrees with the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Commission report “World at Risk” that the threat of bioterrorism is urgent, growing, and requires decisive action. Recommendations such as enhancing the nation’s capabilities for a rapid response to prevent biological attacks from inflicting mass casualties, and engaging the international community to counter biosecurity risks are valuable measures that could make an appreciable difference to national security.

The Commission also highlights the importance of laboratory oversight and securing dangerous pathogens. Laboratory security is indeed critical and has increased greatly since the anthrax letters were mailed in 2001. However, there are inherent limitations to our ability to secure dangerous pathogens given their ready availability outside of laboratories in the U.S. and around the world. There is also a real danger that draconian or costly security measures will prevent scientists from working on treatments or vaccines that the country needs to treat emerging infectious diseases or to respond to a bioterrorism attack.

---

RAND, 19 Jan 11: Early Observations on Possible Defenses by the Emerging Threat Agent Project

Quote:

---

The Defense Department is concerned about emerging chemical and biological (CB) weapon agents and the ability of U.S. defenses to counter them. Due to scientific advances that facilitate the development of new and novel CB agents and the fact that uncovering such work will be a difficult intelligence challenge, the Emerging Threat Agent Project (ETAP) undertook a study to examine the challenges of emerging CB agents and propose measures to reduce their risks.

The authors conclude that the problem is comprised of two related components. Given the inherent secrecy with which states and other actors will conduct CB agent development, adversary programs could acquire new CB agents years before U.S. defense planners recognize those agents. And, after the U.S. intelligence community recognizes those CB agents as threats, the United States will probably need many more years to establish a comprehensive defense against them. Such gaps in CB agent defense capabilities pose a potentially serious risk to U.S. military operations....

---

Quote:

---

A Dutch researcher has created a virus with the potential to kill half of the planet’s population. Now, researchers and experts in bioterrorism debate whether it is a good idea to publish the virus creation ”recipe”. However, several voices argue that such research should have not happened in the first place.

The virus is a strain of avian influenza H5N1 genetically modified to be extremely contagious. It was created by researcher Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Netherlands. The work was first presented at a conference dedicated to influenza, that took place in September in Malta.

---

http://www.doctortipster.com/6952-du...-millions.html

Quote:

---

In a 17th floor office in the same building, virologist Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center calmly explains why his team created what he says is "probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make"—and why he wants to publish a paper describing how they did it.

---

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...orm.html?rss=1

See also

Quote:

---

The influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 killed more people than the Great War, known today as World War I (WWI), at somewhere between 20 and 40 million people. It has been cited as the most devastating epidemic in recorded world history. More people died of influenza in a single year than in four-years of the Black Death Bubonic Plague from 1347 to 1351. Known as "Spanish Flu" or "La Grippe" the influenza of 1918-1919 was a global disaster.

---

http://virus.stanford.edu/uda/

Pandemic influenza will happen. There is no way to stop this. But this? To accelerate and inflate nature in such a manner for no foreseeable benefit to mankind? This is unconscionable. If this is not a major crime it should be.

It will be interesting to see if this story gets traction in Holland, especially given the impact on the national consciousness of the Holocaust and van Gogh's murder.

Good to know, having read the second linked article, that peer reviewed research and a scientific conference were all involved in "missing the point".

Now can the 'door' be closed?

Perhaps we can tease, encourage and urge our Dutch SWC member sennef@cimic-coe to add a comment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

Now can the 'door' be closed?

---

I've seen this move before. It doesn't end well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHfGSqviKlk

From FP Blog and possibly a better title would be 'What is the bio-scientist doing in the lab?'.

A long article and hardly calming:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._door?page=0,0

The Dutch experiment appears to have reached Hilary Clinton's desk; slightly edited comments she made:

Quote:

---

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a surprise visit to Geneva on Dec. 7, addressing the Biological Weapons Convention review conference. The highest-ranking U.S. official to speak to the biological weapons group in decades, Clinton warned "The emerging gene-synthesis industry is making genetic material widely available. This obviously has many benefits for research, but it could also potentially be used to assemble the components of a deadly organism.

A crude but effective terrorist weapon can be made by using a small sample of any number of widely available pathogens, inexpensive equipment, and college-level chemistry and biology. Less than a year ago, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula made a call to arms for, and I quote, 'brothers with degrees in microbiology or chemistry to develop a weapon of mass destruction".

---

In the UK in a different field, radiology, much effort is spent on physical defences, but vetting the staff - at universities - is not included.

I do wonder whether the "bubble" of 'trust me, I'm a scientist' is redundant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

I do wonder whether the "bubble" of 'trust me, I'm a scientist' is redundant.

---

Art imitates life. Life imitates art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Pandemic influenza will happen. There is no way to stop this. But this? To accelerate and inflate nature in such a manner for no foreseeable benefit to mankind? This is unconscionable. If this is not a major crime it should be.

---

Newsflash. Homo sapiens is a part of nature. So the question is which do you prefer? A world where mankind isn't intelligent enough to contemplate, execute and study--under controlled conditions--evolutionary pathways of pathology or a world where we just stumble across it? 1918 wasn't a fun year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

Now can the 'door' be closed?

---

Why do you think it was ever closed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Presley Cannady

Why do you think it was ever closed?

---

Presley,

I understood that scientific research had prior to the Internet been largely communicated within the community in printed journals etc. For others to gain access was not impossible, but would take time and effort. Now the Internet makes access cheap, rapid and easy. I have assumed in this example that much of the Dutch work, if not the formulas, are in the public domain and can be found by those who wish harm.

This part of the scientific community appear to have been oblivious to the dangers, even when the traditional methods of oversight have been used, hence my reference to:

Quote:

---

peer reviewed research and a scientific conference

---

Which you refer to as:

Quote:

---

controlled conditions

---

Hardly much sign of those conditions applying, hence my use of the analogy of a door being closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

Presley,

I understood that scientific research had prior to the Internet been largely communicated within the community in printed journals etc. For others to gain access was not impossible, but would take time and effort. Now the Internet makes access cheap, rapid and easy. I have assumed in this example that much of the Dutch work, if not the formulas, are in the public domain and can be found by those who wish harm.

---

You can assume that journal subscription costs are negligible compared to laboratory costs. If not, then you can assume that evolution has already done most of the work for you and that mischief arising from the accessibility of knowledge is comparable to the risk of spontaneous outbreak and trivial compared to the risk of development and exploitation by nefarious parties.

And ultimately that is the objective of virology (at least performed in the pursuit of medical ethics): to understand and mitigate as much of the space of viral evolutionary pathways as possible as early as possible.

Quote:

---

This part of the scientific community appear to have been oblivious to the dangers, even when the traditional methods of oversight have been used...

---

Can we honestly say that when the researchers themselves are pointing out the extraordinary lethality of this particular H5N1 strain?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Presley Cannady

Newsflash. Homo sapiens is a part of nature. So the question is which do you prefer? A world where mankind isn't intelligent enough to contemplate, execute and study--under controlled conditions--evolutionary pathways of pathology or a world where we just stumble across it? 1918 wasn't a fun year.

---

Research is important. No argument, but 1918 was most likely far smaller than a similar event that is apt to happen in our lifetime. Bringing a super-virus into a world with no immunity to the same is not science, it is opening Pandora's box.

I've seen estimates that as high as 90% of the North American populace were killed in pandemics from the time Columbus landed in the Caribbean and when the first settlers arrived in Virginia. They thought they had found a wilderness, but had in fact arrived in a ghost town.

I am sure the scientists who create the next virus to have such an effect will rationalize how their work was to advance science as you describe, and it was only some accident or intentional abuse of their work that led to the following disaster. Some things are best left uninvented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Research is important. No argument, but 1918 was most likely far smaller than a similar event that is apt to happen in our lifetime.

---

About ten times smaller than the number tossed around in advanced of publication.

Quote:

---

Bringing a super-virus into a world with no immunity to the same is not science, it is opening Pandora's box.

---

Couple of points:

1. There is no such thing as a super virus.
2. Discovery in virology is serendipitous; there is presently no means to plan treatment until a pathogen emerges.
3. There is no guarantee that H5N1 wouldn't evolve into the discovered strain.

Pandora's box was open the moment organic replicators appeared on this planet, and what was let loose has likely caused several mass extinctions throughout geological time.

Quote:

---

I am sure the scientists who create the next virus to have such an effect will rationalize how their work was to advance science as you describe...

---

Nothing so cliche. Their work advances the cause of identifying and mitigating existential threats to the survival of mankind.

The obvious middle ground is to allow publication under controlled conditions; i.e. declaring the research results a state secret and managing access.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmericanPride

The obvious middle ground is to allow publication under controlled conditions; i.e. declaring the research results a state secret and managing access.

---

Undoubtably, insofar as you can lay hands on the researchers and their materials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Presley Cannady

Undoubtably, insofar as you can lay hands on the researchers and their materials.

---

That's the easy part. Scare the public. Enact a few laws. Make a few arrests to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue if necessary. I'm not familiar with the Netherlands' national security laws, so its only speculation, assuming that national security is the priority, as opposed to research, freedom of speech, etc.

Looks like there's been an intervention. First, headlined 'Bird flu: Research row as US raises terror fears' and opens with:

Quote:

---

The authors of two controversial bird flu studies have reportedly agreed to a US request to redact key details after a government advisory panel suggested the data could be used by terrorists.

---

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16279365

Secondly, headlined 'When should science be censored?', a more reflective article, which includes both sides arguments; although my eye caught this snippet:

Quote:

---

building ethics into the work of scientists, and relying on journal editors to exercise caution.

---

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16275946

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

Looks like there's been an intervention. First, headlined 'Bird flu: Research row as US raises terror fears' and opens with:

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16279365

Secondly, headlined 'When should science be censored?', a more reflective article, which includes both sides arguments; although my eye caught this snippet:

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16275946

---

Is anyone genuinely surprised? It makes me wonder what incentives were provided to encourage their decision for self-censorship.

Quote:

---

The days of medical masks at airports and widespread panic may be coming back—that's because at least 12 humans are believed to have been infected with a new strain of swine flu that's not covered by this season's vaccine.

The new swine flu strain, H3N2v, has shown at least some potential for human-to-human transmission in those 12 individuals, which makes it especially dangerous. Between 2009 and mid-2010, more than 17,000 people died worldwide from the highly contagious H1N1 swine flu strain, leading the World Health Organization to call the strain a pandemic.

The 12 people with the new swine flu strain live in Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. Officials for the Centers for Disease Control say the sample size of H3N2 infections is too small to know whether it will pose a threat to the population at large.

---

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...ine-flu-strain

"Oops"

http://www.katv.com/story/18858431/c...-germ-lab-leak

Quote:

---

ATLANTA, GA. - It's a highly secured, sophisticated research lab studying deadly diseases such as bird flu, monkeypox, tuberculosis and rabies.

It's in a facility called Building 18, which cost taxpayers $214 million.

And now, the Biosafety Level 3 lab at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta is also the subject of a congressional investigation after a potentially dangerous airflow leak at that lab, CNN has learned.

The leak occurred on February 16, when air flowed the wrong way out of a germ lab into a clean-air corridor, rather than through the powerful HEPA filter that cleans the air, congressional sources and CDC officials said. Visitors touring the facility were in the clean corridor when they observed a puff of air being pushed out from the lab through a slot in a door window.

---

Life imitates Stephen King.

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/842/pogoy.jpg

Scientists explain how they created bird flu that spreads easily among mammals

By Eryn Brown / The Los Angeles Times
Friday, June 22, 2012 -

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/na...osition=recent

I am not sure that this thread's title is fit for purpose now. Yes there are several initial posts on the bio threat and recently we have returned to the issues around the scientific pursuit of biological threats. It is almost as if the title should be Assessing Biological weapons & threats: the insider threat.:wry:

I have merged an October-December 2011 thread on the insider threat 'Dutch Researcher Created A Super-Influenza Virus With The Potential To Kill Millions', with eighteen posts, into this thread. They now appear as posts 13-30.

Quote:

---

We’ve all seen the movies. We’re in a war room with some general at the screen. There’s one innocuous red dot on a map. The dot becomes a circle. The circle becomes many circles. The many circles amplify exponentially to become one big red map. And we’re all going to be doomed by some airborne strain of zombie ebola within a week.

The reality of a contagion’s spread, however, is much different than the movies may portray. And researchers at the MIT’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE) have been working on more accurate, more complex models of disease spread. They’re particularly interested in the first few days of an epidemic, and the role of the 40 largest airports in the U.S. So they turned to traveler cell-phone data from previous MIT research to model accurate human mobility patterns--the real typical actions of travelers (including pesky layovers and tedious connecting flights)--rather than conjectural patterns.

---

http://www.fastcodesign.com/1670351/...ead-a-pandemic

Quote:

---

The Obama administration held a meeting today in Washington with the representatives of more than two dozen countries on how to confront “a perfect storm of converging threats from infectious disease epidemics.”

For once, the current administration seems ready to consider ways to prevent, detect and respond to infectious diseases where they originate:

---

- See more at: http://acdemocracy.org/could-rabbit-....osFZgX42.dpuf

Quote:

---

A major French biomedical research body, the Pasteur Institute, have launched an investigation into the disappearance of some 2,300 test tubes containing samples of the SARS virus. The loss was discovered during an inventory.

The Pasteur Institute filed a so-called 'complaint against X' on Monday over the lost SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) samples. According to French law, such complaints allow law enforcement agencies to investigate a certain case, without targeting specific individuals or companies.

The distinguished research body has also announced it has closed its P3 laboratory, where the samples of the potentially deadly virus were kept.

"Human error is the most probable reason, but we do not exclude anything,” the Institute’s Director General, Christian Bréchot, said, according to AFP.

---

http://rt.com/news/lost-sars-samples-france-608/

Once again research scientists take a risk, yes one within their standard defences and thsi time @ University Wisconsin-Madison.

The article starts:

Quote:

---

Scientists have created a life-threatening virus that closely resembles the 1918 Spanish flu strain that killed an estimated 50m people in an experiment labelled as "crazy" by opponents.

US researchers said the experiments were crucial for understanding the public health risk posed by viruses currently circulating in wild birds, but critics condemned the studies as dangerous and called on funders to stop the work.

---

A British scientist's view:

Quote:

---

The work they are doing is absolutely crazy. The whole thing is exceedingly dangerous...Yes, there is a danger, but it's not arising form the viruses out there in the animals, it's arising from the labs of grossly ambitious people.

---

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...MCNEWEML6619I2