- Hello Jeff - As you know, I am quite upset and angry
about the fact that patients with SARS are being told to STAY HOME. For
some, this is a death sentence.
-
- Why? Because the hospital infrastructure and infection
control is totally inadequate for the 21st century in a world with potential
for bioterrorism and emerging infectious diseases and lab accidents.
-
- I was astounded when I read that the Loudon County Virginia
SARS patient was treated in hospital in an isolation room. So, why a sparsely
populated area like Loudon County would have BSL 4 isolation ward in hospital
is a mystery. Well, it really isn't...I am being sacrastic. We KNOW why
they have the isocenter floor and no one else does. DC elitists and biotech
folks and spooks can get treatment and the rest of us cannot.
-
- Now, Boston U is also seeking a BSL 4 upgrade. This
also angers me.
-
- Homeland security is an enormous farce. Money is not
going to the real needs of homeland security, i.e. equipment for first
responders and strengthened hospital and medical infrastructure. There
should be AT LEAST ONE isocenter facility in major cities like Los Angeles,
New York, etc. Especially since these would be cities targeted by bioterrorists...and
also they are major international travel hubs.
-
- New York City has received NO, I repeat NO homeland security
funds. Nada, zilch, nadie. WHY? Well, the Homeland Security farce agency
was set up for one purpose: an old cronie club ready to pass out OUR TAX
DOLLARS to the old boy network. The Biotech, Pharmaceutical Industrial
complex, etc. such as Battelle Medical, The Carlyle Group, Alibek and Hadron
are all heading for the big bucks.
-
- Meanwhile, Chicago has 8,000+ first responders, and equipment
for only 2,000. New York City police and fire first responders have a
terrorist kit. That kit only supplies a hood that will allow the responder
10 minutes... just enough time to take himself or herself out of harms
way. What do the sheeple have? Nothing. If you get SARS...well, just
go home and stay there.
-
- So, why isn't the windfall of homeland security money
going where it is need? First responder equipment, isocenters (even if
only one center in each major city could be established) and better testing
techniques. We still do not have a rapid test for SARS. We have to rely
on IFA, PCR, ELISA etc. Results take time. How do you test someone coming
off a plane from Asia? On the spot at the airport? You don't. This is where
the funding should go first.
-
- Of course, the old boy networks at the universities are
getting their share. More BSL 4 labs have been applied for but NO BSL4
isocenters in the area of those labs. The communities in those areas should
DEMAND a BSL 4 isocenter as part of any acceptance package of a BSL 4 lab
upgrade in their town. There isn't much we can do. Plum Island will get
its upgrade. You can count on that. So, we must demand a facility on that
island that will have isocenter wards with enough beds to treat community
victims of that lab. Not 3 or 10 beds, but space for 300 people with capability
to treat up to 500.
-
- I resent the way that these labs are being pushed on
us. At least six applications are pending. WHY so many? WHY NOW? MONEY
for the industry, resurgance of offensive bioweapons research, translates
into more forced vaccinations of the public, more targets for bioterrorists.
-
- With all of our biolabs, and all of our hospitals, the
only answer for SARS is the old 1800s method of treatment: forced quarantine.
We were better able to manage Smallpox back in 1948. WHY?
-
- Patty
-
-
- Chronicle of Higher Education Biocontainment Facilities
-
-
- Closing The Gates - The Money Scramble
-
- Colleges rush to capitalize on the government's push
for homeland security
-
- By Anne Marie Borrego
-
- It's a gamble, but Mark S. Klempner and Boston University
are going for it.
-
- Since last summer, Dr. Klempner, the associate provost
for research at the university's medical school, has rounded up research
scientists, hired architects, commissioned polls, and negotiated with the
mayor, the City Council, and local neighborhood groups. His goal: to build
a national biodefense laboratory on the campus. By the time he submitted
his proposal, a 120-pound stack of paper and binders, to the National Institutes
of Health, in February, BU had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and
committed to spending $50-million to help construct the facility. The project,
if approved, would not be finished until 2008.
-
- The payoff, though, could be huge: $1.6-billion in federal
money over 20 years and the cachet of being one of up to two new labs chosen
by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases to house and
study some of the world's deadliest biological agents, like the anthrax
and botulism bacteria and the Ebola virus.
-
- Dr. Klempner studied infectious diseases at the NIH and
plans to assemble a team of 25 principal investigators if Boston University
is selected. John R. Murphy, a partner on the proposal and the university's
chief of molecular medicine, spent nearly a year working in such a lab
at the U.S. Army's research center at Fort Detrick, Md., during the 1980s.
BU boasts a rich history of studies in sexually transmitted diseases, a
biotechnology park, and a program in bioinformatics. "We have an obligation
to the nation," Dr. Klempner says of the institution's bid for the
biodefense center.
-
- But Dr. Klempner is best known for his work on Lyme disease,
and BU is a relative unknown in the small world of bioweapons research.
In fact, it is not generally considered to be among the top universities
in biomedical research.
-
- Which raises the question: Who should be dipping into
the multibillion-dollar pot of money that has been offered up for homeland-security
research?
-
- Boston University is just one of dozens of institutions
vying for a piece of the $3.2-billion that the Bush administration has
requested for the 2004 fiscal year for research and development to protect
the country. That's more than four times the amount spent in 2002, so it's
not surprising that many researchers are now wondering how their work might
be used to fight terrorism. While certain fields, like microbiology, are
an obvious fit for antiterrorism research, "it's clear that some are
just relabeling things that have little to do with homeland security,"
says David M. Hart, an associate professor of public policy at Harvard
University, who studies the relationship between science and government.
-
- Some universities have made bold plays for NIH mega-grants
since the September 11 attacks and subsequent anthrax scare. Others have
set up homeland-security centers, institutes, and joint ventures with other
universities to strengthen their chances of getting money from the NIH
and other agencies.
-
- In the 2002 fiscal year, 35 institutions lobbied successfully
for $116-million in homeland-security earmarks -- money doled out by Congress
rather than won through a competition peer-reviewed by scientists. That's
nearly double the $60-million earmarked in 2001, and the volume of projects
for 2003 appears to be even higher.
-
- Universities are not above sounding patriotic notes in
their bids, or even hiring former military personnel to help draw big bucks.
-
- To some insiders, such entrepreneurial patriotism seems
opportunistic. "There is a sense that people are trying to jump on
the bandwagon of bioterrorism research to get their hands on the money,"
says Julie A. Coffield, a professor of toxicology and neuroscience at the
University of Georgia and an expert on botulinum, a bacterium that has
been used to make biological weapons.
-
- Dr. Coffield says she and other researchers are "a
little bit frustrated" that the government is doling out money to
institutions not known for their work in biodefense. "You hear about
these things on the news and say, 'Why did they get that money?' Because
as far as we know, there's nobody there who's ever done any research related
to that."
-
- Before the terrorist and anthrax attacks, very few people
knew anything about bioterrorism or bio-weapons, says Raymond A. Zilinskas,
a clinical microbiologist who now directs the Chemical and Biological Weapons
Nonproliferation Program at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
"Suddenly, we have thousands and thousands of experts who know everything
about it -- at least that's the impression they give."
-
- Mr. Zilinskas says biocontainment facilities, like the
ones BU and other institutions are bidding to build, should go to institutions
with extensive experience with the most dangerous organisms, for reasons
not only of safety but also of biology. Moving from a less-harmful virus
or toxin to one of the "threat agents, that would take a major adjustment,"
he says. "You'd have to get people who know about these organisms
-- who know how to work in a different environment."
-
- Boston University's Mr. Murphy disagrees. "Not to
be glib, but if I can do it, anybody can do it," he says of learning
the safety procedures required for work in a Biosafety Level 4 lab, as
such facilities are known. As for the biological adjustment, he says, "essentially
the same techniques are used almost irrespective of the organism that you're
working with."
-
- Congress seems to share that view. "The fact that
a university appears to be a recent convert to this area of concern doesn't
mean that they're not highly qualified to do that kind of research,"
says David J. Goldston, chief of staff to Republicans on the U.S. House
of Representatives Science Committee. "This is exactly what the federal-funding
system is supposed to do -- direct researchers that have fairly widely
applicable expertise to issues of national concern."
-
- Looking for Results
-
- Besides applying for grants, some universities are rolling
their projects into newly created homeland-security institutes and have
hired directors just to manage them. Ohio State University, for example,
created a Program for International and Homeland Security in April 2002,
and -- at a time when the university is hoping to cut $20-million to $25-million
over the next five years -- has spent more than $1-million so far to develop
proposals to garner federal funds. Part of that amount went to the salary
of a retired Air Force major general, Todd I. Stewart, the program's director.
He is one of at least three former military officers and scientists recently
hired to direct such programs.
-
- General Stewart, who has a Ph.D. in management and was
a professor at the Air Force Institute of Technology, in Ohio, is clear
about his role at Ohio State. "My job," he says, "is to
try and encourage the faculty and other researchers and educators there
to do research and investigation on various aspects of homeland security"
-- not just in the physical and life sciences but also in the humanities
and social sciences. Ohio State already boasts of 54 such research projects,
courses, and programs on its Web site.
-
- Results, not money, are the goal, says General Stewart,
because "helping the nation move forward with solutions is the bottom
line." Some universities hope high-level politicking will help get
their foot in the door.
-
- Arizona State University has hired Rick Collins, who
was chief of staff to Gov. Jane Dee Hull of Arizona in the 1990s, to help
it "clarify" its capabilities, he says. "We need to make
sure that we're on the radar screen" as the new Homeland Security
Department is set up. "I want to make sure we've got an elevator pitch
that we can put in the hands of policy makers that are at the top level."
-
- So after lawmakers authorized the department to sponsor
regional demonstrations to "improve contact among technology developers,
vendors, and acquisition personnel," Arizona State turned to its president,
Michael M. Crow, a seasoned fund raiser who had considerable success in
winning Congressional earmarks for Iowa State University earlier in his
career.
-
- Although the division that would create the program was
not even fully operational, Mr. Crow sent a letter directly to Tom Ridge,
the homeland-security secretary, stating Arizona State's interest in holding
one of the regional demonstrations.
-
- "Arizona State University is on the cutting edge
in promoting revolutionary changes in technologies that would promote homeland
security," Mr. Crow wrote. "Americans know how to step up when
called upon." (No decision has been made on where the demonstrations
will be held.)
-
- It will be crucial for Arizona State and its competitors
to prove in fairly sophisticated ways that they are uniquely qualified
to make America safer, if they want to be contenders for government funds.
-
- Under the Bush administration's proposed budget for the
new department, 95 percent of the $803-million slated for research grants
and contracts would go to applied research rather than basic research,
the type most commonly done at universities.
-
- Already in the Field
-
- Some institutions, like Carnegie Mellon, Oklahoma State,
and Pennsylvania State Universities, have conducted national-security research
since long before the 2001 attacks. In some cases, that research is now
focusing on the federal government's homeland-security priorities. Others
hope that their experience will give them an edge in the race for more
research funds.
-
- Oklahoma State, in Stillwater, has received $15-million
since 1999 in grants, contracts, and earmarks from the federal government
to fight terrorism.
-
- In the fall of 2001, for instance, the university received
$1-million to develop lighter, thinner, and cooler gear to protect emergency
personnel from dangerous chemicals, says H. James Harmon, a physics professor
who has studied nerve-agent sensors since 1992. "It's important to
emphasize that we did not jump on the bandwagon," he says, "that
it kind of came and rolled over on us."
-
- The state sees an opportunity as well. Despite a mounting
budget deficit, the Oklahoma Legislature awarded Oklahoma State and the
University of Oklahoma $19-million each this year for research and development
on homeland security. Oklahoma State will use the money to build a biosafety
laboratory to study both biological and agricultural terrorism, says Joe
Alexander, the university's vice president for research.
-
- Oklahoma State hopes the lab and the state support will
be a magnet for federal dollars, including $25-million in grant and contract
proposals that it is counting on to "bring more money into the state
than what the state invested," says Mr. Alexander. "And then,
of course, we're working with our Congressional delegation to hopefully
get funds earmarked for this kind of research as well."
-
- Homeland-security pork has already drawn the ire of several
legislators.
-
- Last year, during the final hours before it passed legislation
establishing the Department of Homeland Security, the Senate argued over
what appeared to be pork in the bill. At issue: the creation of a university-based
Homeland Security Center under 15 strict criteria that, it seemed, only
Texas A&M
-
- University at College Station could satisfy. To be chosen,
the university would need to have strong ties to laboratories that study
animal and plant diseases; to demonstrate expertise in food safety, wastewater
operations, and port security; and to have a relationship with the Department
of Agriculture's labs and training centers. Texas A&M is the only institution
that appeared to fit that bill.
-
- Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut Demo-crat, called
the criteria "nothing short of science pork" during the Senate
debate. "Science has thrived through peer review and competition over
the best proposals -- which are fundamentals of federal science policy,"
he said. To date, no university has received money for the center.
-
- Despite those heated arguments, this year's federal budget
contains page upon page of earmarks for homeland security across several
agencies, including the following:
-
- a.. University of South Florida: $5-million to build
a Center for Biodefense.
-
- b.. St. Petersburg College: $3-million for the National
Terrorism Preparedness Institute of its Southeastern Public Safety Institute.
-
- c.. Auburn University: $1-million for its Canine Detection
Center.
-
- The first two came courtesy of Rep. C.W. (Bill) Young,
the Florida Republican who is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
The last was introduced by Sen. Richard C. Shelby, an Alabama Republican
who leads the Appropriations subcommittee on transportation.
-
- Sen. John McCain, a Republican from Arizona, criticized
the 2003 pork. The multitude of earmarks "will continue to burden
American taxpayers," he said. "They represent a serious diversion
away from federal programs that have undergone the appropriate merit-based
selection process."
-
- Harvard's Mr. Hart agrees. Although "there is something
to be said for spreading the money around" to institutions that do
not typically receive large grants, earmarks are not always the best way
to produce top-notch research, he says. They "won't produce the best
results in the short term, compared to other ways of allocating funds."
-
- Money should be awarded in a mix of ways, Mr. Hart says,
"and peer review should be important, and probably dominant, for some
of these homeland-security projects."
-
- But others say results should stand on their own. "It's
not the motives that are necessarily the most important," says Albert
H. Teich, director of science policy at the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. "It's the outcome."
-
- The Wrong Priorities?
-
- While legislative pork has long been assailed as a politicization
of the research process, some critics also say the federal government may
be allocating its resources unproductively, even in competitive contracts.
-
- Take the NIH's proposed National Biocontainment Laboratories,
the Biosafety Level 4 labs like the one Boston University wants to build.
David R. Franz, vice president of the division of chemical and biological
defense of the Southern Research Institute, a nonprofit center affiliated
with the University of Alabama at Birmingham, does not specifically object
to BU's bid.
-
- But he thinks the proposed lab is not the type of facility
that the country needs the most right now. Biosafety Level 4 labs require
much more security than do Level 3 labs, which are much more common. Among
the security measures: Air locks separate Level 4 labs from others in a
complex, researchers wear "moon suits" to study deadly microbes,
and scientists take chemical showers after they are finished.
-
- But that extra cost and security, says Dr. Franz, could
be wasted. In his 11 years at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute
of Infectious Diseases, he recalls, "we had 10,000 square feet of
BSL-4 and 50,000 square feet of BSL-3, and we ran short more often of BSL-3."
-
- Mr. Zilinskas, of the Monterey Institute, agrees. He
says existing Level 4 labs should be expanded, instead of building new
ones. He also says that an NIH proposal to add several more Level 3 labs
would be a better use of federal dollars.
-
- Dr. Franz also wonders whether the new labs will steal
talent from the existing ones. "I'm afraid that we're going to be
pulling people out of our centers of excellence and actually taking a step
back as a nation in this area," he says, "until we get those
other labs up and running."
-
- Shifting so much money to antiterrorism efforts, especially
bioterrorism research, also misplaces priorities, Dr. Franz says. "We
are putting almost $6-billion in biodefense, and we lose 20,000 to 80,000
people every year to influenza, 40,000 people to automobile accidents,
and 440,000 to smoking-related illnesses," he says. "It's more
likely that you'll get hit by a car than sickened by a bioterrorist's bug."
-
- All that said, he does feel that the risk of bioterrorism
requires major spending on certain kinds of research, as long as basic
studies of public-health hazards continue to be priorities. And Boston
University says that if its proposal gets the nod, its new lab would both
fight bioterrorism and aid public health.
-
- In the final analysis, most scientists seem pleased by
the coming federal windfall, regardless of which researchers end up with
it, while a number of policy analysts fret about skewed priorities and
wasted resources. But a certain amount of waste is probably inevitable
in any shift in scientific priorities.
-
- The federal government, after all, has a history of pouring
money into major research projects during times of national need, like
the cold war and the energy crisis of the 1970s. As Harvard's Mr. Hart
puts it: "If there's one thing we've learned in American history,
it's that you can get results if you dump a huge amount of money into [major
scientific endeavors]. And you have to accept waste with it."
-
- Mary Wulff
-
- Patricia A. Doyle, PhD Please visit my "Emerging
Diseases" message board at: http://www.clickitnews.com/emergingdiseases/index.shtml
Zhan le Devlesa tai sastimasa Go with God and in Good Health
|
