E3LSI research: an essential element of biodefense

The threat of bioterrorism has prompted the U.S. to undertake a vast biodefense initiative, including funding biodefense-related scientific research at unprecedented levels. Unfortunately, the many ethical, economic, environmental, legal, and social implications (E(3)LSI) of biodefense research and activities are not yet receiving the attention they warrant. Previously, in laudable demonstrations of foresight and responsibility, the federal government has funded research into the E(3)LSI of other recent scientific endeavors--namely, the Human Genome Project and the nanotechnology research program--through directed appropriations from their respective research budgets. This article advocates and proposes a model for a portion of biodefense funding to be similarly set aside for an E(3)LSI research program to complement biodefense research, to ensure that bioterror preparedness does not give rise to harmful or otherwise undesirable unintended consequences.     

Federal Agency biodefense funding, FY2011-FY2012

Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series have analyzed civilian biodefense funding by the federal government for fiscal years (FY) 2001 through proposed funding for FY2011. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for FY2012, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce, and State; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Science Foundation. This article also includes an updated assessment of the proportion of biodefense funding provided for programs that address multiple scientific, public health, healthcare, national security, and international security issues in addition to biodefense. The FY2012 federal budget for civilian biodefense totals $6.42 billion. Of that total, $5.78 billion (90%) is budgeted for programs that have both biodefense and nonbiodefense goals and applications, and $637.6 million (10%) is budgeted for programs that have objectives solely related to biodefense.     

Federal agency biodefense funding, FY2012-FY2013

Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series have analyzed civilian biodefense funding by the federal government for fiscal years (FY) 2001 through proposed funding for FY2012. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for FY2013, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for civilian biodefense at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce, and State; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Science Foundation. As in previous years, our analysis indicates that the majority (>90%) of the "biodefense" programs included in the FY2013 budget have both biodefense and non-biodefense goals and applications-that is, programs to improve infectious disease research, public health and hospital preparedness, and disaster response more broadly. Programs that focus solely on biodefense represent a small proportion (<10%) of our analysis, as the federal agencies continue to prioritize all-hazards preparedness. For FY2013, the federal budget for programs focused solely on civilian biodefense totals $574.2 million, and the budget for programs with multiple goals and applications, including biodefense, is $4.96 billion, for an overall total of $5.54 billion.     

Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2001-FY2005

Over the past several years, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. This article analyzes the civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2005, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of State. In total, approximately $14.5 billion has been funded for civilian biodefense through FY2004, with an additional $7.6 billion in the President's budget request for FY2005.     

Biological threat characterization research: a critical component of national biodefense

Biological warfare (BW) threat assessments identify and prioritize BW threats to civilian and military populations. In an ideal world, they provide policymakers with clear and compelling guidance to prioritize biodefense research, development, testing, evaluation, and acquisition of countermeasures. Unfortunately, the biodefense community does not exist in an ideal world. National security professionals responsible for crafting BW threat assessments often are challenged by factors that limit the clarity and/or timeliness of those assessments. Moreover, the potential for life science advances to enhance threats enabled by state programs and the possibility that non-state actors may pursue crude but effective BW methodologies will drastically expand the scope of the perceived threat. Appropriate investment of federal biodefense funds will require some mechanism for validating and prioritizing present and future threats. Ideally, such a mechanism will incorporate empirical data targeted to elucidate actual hazards. In this regard, the Department of Homeland Security's creation of a Biological Threat Characterization Program for the technical validation of threat agents will be a valuable addition to the nation's overall biodefense strategy. This article articulates the need for a coordinated national biological threat characterization program, discusses some of the principal challenges associated with such research, and suggests a few options for their resolution.     

Biodefense research: an emerging conundrum

Biodefense research creates a conundrum for the scientific community--what are the permissible limits of biodefense research and how can knowledge in the life sciences be protected against misuse? As biodefense research expands to counter the threat of bioterrorism, so does suspicion and the need for guidance to respond to these concerns.     

Billions for biodefense: Federal Agency biodefense funding, FY2006-FY2007

Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series analyzed the civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2006. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for fiscal year 2007, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of State, and the National Science Foundation.     

Incentives for biodefense countermeasure development

Therapeutics and vaccines are available for only a fraction of biological threats, leaving populations vulnerable to attacks involving biological weapons. Existing U.S. policies to accelerate commercial development of biodefense products have thus far induced insufficient investment by the biopharmaceutical industry. In this article, we examine the technical, regulatory, and market risks associated with countermeasure development and review existing and proposed federal incentives to increase industrial investment. We conclude with several recommendations. To increase industry's engagement in biodefense countermeasure development, Congress should expand BioShield funding, giving HHS the flexibility to fund a portfolio of biodefense countermeasures whose revenues are comparable to those of commercial drugs. Congress should establish tradable priority review vouchers for developers of new countermeasures. A National Academy of Sciences or National Biodefense Science Board should formally evaluate incentive programs and a government-managed "Virtual Pharma," in which HHS contracts separate stages of research, development, and production to individual firms.     

Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2008-FY2009

Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series analyzed civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2008. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for fiscal year 2009, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Defense, Agriculture, and State and the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation.     

Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense funding, FY2007-FY2008

Since 2001, the U.S. government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. Earlier articles in this series analyzed civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for fiscal year 2008, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of State, and the National Science Foundation.     

Billions for biodefense: federal agency biodefense budgeting, FY2005-FY2006

Since 2001, the United States government has spent substantial resources on preparing the nation against a bioterrorist attack. An earlier article analyzed the civilian biodefense funding by the federal government from fiscal years 2001 through 2005. This article updates those figures with budgeted amounts for fiscal year 2006, specifically analyzing the budgets and allocations for biodefense at the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of State.     

Antibodies for biodefense

Potential bioweapons are biological agents (bacteria, viruses and toxins) at risk of intentional dissemination. Biodefense, defined as development of therapeutics and vaccines against these agents, has seen an increase, particularly in the US, following the 2001 anthrax attack. This review focuses on recombinant antibodies and polyclonal antibodies for biodefense that have been accepted for clinical use. These antibodies aim to protect against primary potential bioweapons or category A agents as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis, Francisella tularensis, botulinum neurotoxins, smallpox virus and certain others causing viral hemorrhagic fevers) and certain category B agents. Potential for prophylactic use is presented, as well as frequent use of oligoclonal antibodies or synergistic effect with other molecules. Capacities and limitations of antibodies for use in biodefense are discussed, and are generally applicable to the field of infectious diseases.Key words: antibody, anthrax, plague, smallpox, botulism, tularemia, brucellosis, hemorrhagic, ricin, SEB     

Eight strategies to engage industry in biosecurity

A significant portion of the domestic bio-research base-and the one most likely to provide translational research-is not engaged in biodefense. Despite the fact that more than one-third of all life science researchers are employed in commercial bio-research, fewer than 3% of the 1,500 U.S. bio-technology companies are involved in biosecurity initiatives. The bio-tech industry has largely not aligned itself to play an integral role in biosecurity, but there are a few policy changes that could dramatically alter this balance. These include engaging and motivating the bio-technology middle class, seeding secondary markets, focusing on system solutions, providing reagents and standards, aligning communications, and prioritizing translational research. By reaching out, policymakers can span the current chasm between the bio-industry and government, build a stable biodefense industrial base, establish solid working relationships, and secure better services and products. The rewards would be significant for government and industry alike.     

Antibodies for biodefense

Potential bioweapons are biological agents (bacteria, viruses, and toxins) at risk of intentional dissemination. Biodefense, defined as development of therapeutics and vaccines against these agents, has seen an increase, particularly in the US following the 2001 anthrax attack. This review focuses on recombinant antibodies and polyclonal antibodies for biodefense that have been accepted for clinical use. These antibodies aim to protect against primary potential bioweapons, or category A agents as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis, Francisella tularensis, botulinum neurotoxins, smallpox virus, and certain others causing viral hemorrhagic fevers) and certain category B agents. Potential for prophylactic use is presented, as well as frequent use of oligoclonal antibodies or synergistic effect with other molecules. Capacities and limitations of antibodies for use in biodefense are discussed, and are generally applicable to the field of infectious diseases.     

Turning biodefense dollars into products

Five years after the US anthrax attacks, and more than two years after BioShield legislation was ratified, a survey reveals that biodefense funding has thus far produced only a handful of products for clinical development.     

Multipathogen oligonucleotide microarray for environmental and biodefense applications

Food-borne pathogens are a major health problem. The large and diverse number of microbial pathogens and their virulence factors has fueled interest in technologies capable of detecting multiple pathogens and multiple virulence factors simultaneously. Some of these pathogens and their toxins have potential use as bioweapons. DNA microarray technology allows the simultaneous analysis of thousands of sequences of DNA in a relatively short time, making it appropriate for biodefense and for public health uses. This paper describes methods for using DNA microarrays to detect and analyze microbial pathogens. The FDA-1 microarray was developed for the simultaneous detection of several food-borne pathogens and their virulence factors including Listeria spp., Campylobacter spp., Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin genes and Clostridium perfringens toxin genes. Three elements were incorporated to increase confidence in the microarray detection system: redundancy of genes, redundancy of oligonucleotide probes (oligoprobes) for a specific gene, and quality control oligoprobes to monitor array spotting and target DNA hybridization. These elements enhance the reliability of detection and reduce the chance of erroneous results due to the genetic variability of microbes or technical problems with the microarray. The results presented demonstrate the potential of oligonucleotide microarrays for detection of environmental and biodefense relevant microbial pathogens.     

The development of broad-spectrum antiviral medical countermeasures to treat viral hemorrhagic fevers caused by natural or weaponized virus infections

The Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) began development of a broad-spectrum antiviral countermeasure against deliberate use of high-consequence viral hemorrhagic fevers (VHFs) in 2016. The effort featured comprehensive preclinical research, including laboratory testing and rapid advancement of lead molecules into nonhuman primate (NHP) models of Ebola virus disease (EVD). Remdesivir (GS-5734, Veklury, Gilead Sciences) was the first small molecule therapeutic to successfully emerge from this effort. Remdesivir is an inhibitor of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, a viral enzyme that is essential for viral replication. Its robust potency and broad-spectrum antiviral activity against certain RNA viruses including Ebola virus and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) led to its clinical evaluation in randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) in human patients during the 2018 EVD outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the ongoing Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic today. Remdesivir was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of COVID-19 requiring hospitalization. Substantial gaps remain in improving the outcomes of acute viral infections for patients afflicted with both EVD and COVID-19, including how to increase therapeutic breadth and strategies for the prevention and treatment of severe disease. Combination therapy that joins therapeutics with complimentary mechanisms of action appear promising, both preclinically and in RCTs. Importantly, significant programmatic challenges endure pertaining to a clear drug and biological product development pathway for therapeutics targeting biodefense and emerging pathogens when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible. For example, remdesivir’s clinical development was facilitated by outbreaks of Ebola and SARS-CoV-2; as such, the development pathway employed for remdesivir is likely to be the exception rather than the rule.The current regulatory licensure pathway for therapeutics targeting rare, weaponizable VHF agents is likely to require use of FDA’s established Animal Rule (21 CFR 314.600–650 for drugs; 21 CFR 601.90–95 for biologics). The FDA may grant marketing approval based on adequate and well-controlled animal efficacy studies when the results of those studies establish that the drug is safe and likely to produce clinical benefit in humans. In practical terms, this is anticipated to include a series of rigorous, well-documented, animal challenge studies, to include aerosol challenge, combined with human safety data. While small clinical studies against naturally occurring, high-consequence pathogens are typically performed where possible, approval for the therapeutics currently under development against biodefense pathogens will likely require the Animal Rule pathway utilizing studies in NHPs. We review the development of remdesivir as illustrative of the effort that will be needed to field future therapeutics against highly lethal, infectious agents.     

Risk of occupationally acquired illnesses from biological threat agents in unvaccinated laboratory workers

Many vaccines for bioterrorism agents are investigational and therefore not available (outside of research protocol use) to all at-risk laboratory workers who have begun working with these agents as a result of increased interest in biodefense research. Illness surveillance data archived from the U.S. offensive biological warfare program (from 1943 to 1969) were reviewed to assess the impact of safety measures on disease prevention (including biosafety cabinets [BSCs]) before and after vaccine availability. Most laboratory-acquired infections from agents with higher infective doses (e.g., anthrax, glanders, and plague) were prevented with personal protective measures and safety training alone. Safety measures (including BSCs) without vaccination failed to sufficiently prevent illness from agents with lower infective doses in this high-risk research setting. Infections continued with tularemia (average 15/year), Venezuelan equine encephalitis (1.9/year), and Q fever (3.4/year) but decreased dramatically once vaccinations became available (average of 1, 0.6, and 0 infections per year, respectively). While laboratory-acquired infections are not expected to occur frequently in the current lower-risk biodefense research setting because of further improvements in biosafety equipment and changes in biosafety policies, the data help to define the inherent risks of working with the specific agents of bioterrorism. The data support the idea that research with these agents should be restricted to laboratories with experience in handling highly hazardous agents and where appropriate safety training and precautions can be implemented.     

Discovery of high affinity anti-ricin antibodies by B cell receptor sequencing and by yeast display of combinatorial VH:VL libraries from immunized animals

Ricin is a toxin that could potentially be used as a bioweapon. We identified anti-ricin A chain antibodies by sequencing the antibody repertoire from immunized mice and by selecting high affinity antibodies using yeast surface display. These methods led to the isolation of multiple antibodies with high (sub-nanomolar) affinity. Interestingly, the antibodies identified by the 2 independent approaches are from the same clonal lineages, indicating for the first time that yeast surface display can identify native antibodies. The new antibodies represent well-characterized reagents for biodefense diagnostics and therapeutics development.