Archive for the ‘EditorialNote’ Category

Editorial Note – BiodefenseEducation.org on Long-Term Break

Sunday, January 1st, 2006

Today, BiodefenseEducation.org will stop updating on a daily basis as the grant from the National Institute of Health’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that provided the funding for its operation has ended.

To read a summary of what we have accomplished, look here.

If you have any further comments on this site, please fill out our Evaluation Form.

It has been our pleasure to have served you.

Editorial Note – 2005 Biodefense Year in Review

Sunday, January 1st, 2006

2005

There were no documented uses of biological weapons this year. However, in January a man in Florida was arrested after having been found to have ricin in his possession. In March and November there were false positive alarms for anthrax being detected in Department of Defense mail facilities; while in October there was a false positive alarm for tularemia being detected on the Mall in Washington D.C.

Natural outbreaks this year involving Category I agents included:

  • Outbreaks of Anthrax which occurred in China, Guinea Bissau, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Turkey, and Zimbabwe (twice).
  • Outbreak of Yersinia pestis in Congo.
  • Outbreak of Ebola in Congo.
  • Outbreak of Marburg in Angola.
  • Outbreaks of Tularemia in Russia and the United States.

Progress was made this year in developing the following countermeasures:

  • Drugs – development of new drugs continued for the treatment of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and smallpox.
  • Vaccines – development continued on new vaccines against anthrax, clostridium botulinum, francisella tularemia, ricin, smallpox, viral hemorrhagic fevers and yersinia pestis.
  • Diagnostics – development continued on new diagnostic tests for smallpox.

Several recurring themes were identified throughout this year’s biodefense news stories:

  • Although overall there has been some increase in funding, the US public health system remains underfunded, in spite of clear evidence of the dangers of this. This underfunding leads to a lack of readiness in state public health departments.
  • The controversy over the safety of the US military’s current anthrax vaccine and whether it should be administered to US military personnel.
  • The looming threat of the emergence of new infectious diseases, as evidenced by the avian influenza outbreak.
  • Apathy of the pharmaceutical industry towards the Project BioShield legislation, leading to the drafting of a new round of legislation to encourage their participation in the development of biodefense countermeasures.
  • The operational refinement and integration of the automated disease surveillance programs.
  • The increasing use of simulations – aka biodefense wargames – such as Atlantic Storm – in learning how to improve planning for a response to a biological warfare attack at the international, national, regional, and local levels.
  • Preventing research which can lead to the development of new genetically engineered virulent infectious diseases is impossible.
  • The controversy over whether biodefense research should be conducted in secrecy or in the open, and how to balance the openness of scientific research with the potential dangerous uses it can be put to, as articulated by the controversy over publishing the article on how to contaminate the US milk supply with clostridium botulinum toxin in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences.
  • The increasing opposition voiced by individuals who are going to have biodefense laboratories built in their neighborhoods, best evidenced by the residents of Boston’s South End and residents near Fort Detrick in Frederick, Maryland.
  • The growing opposition to the amount of resources being invested in biodefense research, to the detriment of research in cancer, etc.

Finally???
The mysterious story of the year was the inability of the US to identify the individual(s) responsible for the ricin attacks of 2004 as well as the individual(s) responsible for the anthrax attacks of September 2001, coupled to the legal jousting between the US government and “person of interest” Steven Hatfill.

The most surprising story of the year was how poorly trained individuals in the US medical and public health systems were found to be in terms of their ability to detect and respond to a bioterrorist attack.

The most sobering story of the year was the end of the unsuccessful hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The most chilling story of the year were the continued rumors that terrorist organizations are seeking to obtain biological weapons.

Editorial Note – Evaluation

Friday, December 16th, 2005

If you have not yet done so, please take a moment to fill out our Evaluation Form to let us know what you think of BiodefenseEducation.org and how it can be improved.

We would be especially interested in hearing from you if you are a Medical Personnel (Physician, nurse, health sciences student, etc.) or a First Responder (Police, fire, paramedic, etc.).

more…

Editorial Note – Sorry for the Service Interruption

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2005

My apologies for the service interruption over the last week. We had to change the site over to new DNS servers???and the gremlins conspired to map the new DNS servers to an old version of the site. The gremlins have all been ironed out, the new DNS servers are now mapped to the current version of the site, and we will start catching up on our backlog of articles tomorrow.

Editorial Note – BiodefenseEducation.org on Break Until Tuesday August 2

Thursday, July 21st, 2005

BiodefenseEducation.org is taking a short break and will next be updated on Tuesday August 2. See you then!

Editorial Note – BiodefenseEducation.org on Break Until May 6

Sunday, May 1st, 2005

BiodefenseEducation.org is taking a short break and will next be updated on Friday May 6. See you then!

Editorial Note – BiodefenseEducation.org on Break Until April 25

Friday, April 22nd, 2005

BiodefenseEducation.org is taking a short break and will next be updated on Monday April 25. See you then!

Editorial Note – Initial Experiences in Developing a Chronologically Organized Digital Library for Continuing Education in Biodefense

Tuesday, April 19th, 2005

DLib Magazine – If you are interested in seeing what we have learned in the last year while running BiodefenseEducation.org, we suggest you read this article. It is summarized best in the abstract:

“To address an identified but unmet need, a chronologically organized digital library and learning collaboratory has been developed for delivering continuing education to investigators and trainees in the form of biodefense-related news stories, which can be integrated into their daily workflow in a time-efficient basis. We have begun to show how use of this program can broaden and deepen investigators and trainees knowledge and perspective of biodefense-related issues and thus give them a larger context for their work, and how over time these news stories aggregate into an unstructured curriculum of biodefense topics that closely parallels the structured curriculum of a formal biodefense graduate program. This technique of using a chronologically organized digital library dedicated to delivering a discipline-specific unstructured curriculum that unfolds in practice can be generalized to any discipline.”
more…

Editorial Note – BiodefenseEducation.org on Break Until April 11

Wednesday, April 6th, 2005

BiodefenseEducation.org is taking a short break and will next be updated on Monday April 11th. See you then.

Editorial Note

Thursday, February 24th, 2005

BiodefenseEducation.org is taking a break and will next be updated on Monday March 14. See you then!

Editorial Note – Reading List / Curriculum Updated

Thursday, February 10th, 2005

BiodefenseEducation.org’s Reading List / Curriculum has been updated through February 8, 2005.
more…

Editorial Note – BiodefenseEducation.org Year in Review – 2004

Saturday, January 29th, 2005

2004

The two documented uses of biological weapons this year were the arrest in January of a terrorist cell in France which was dedicated to producing and dispensing botulism and ricin toxins, and the sending in February of a letter containing ricin to the US Senate.

Natural outbreaks this year involving Category I agents included:

  • Outbreaks of Anthrax which occurred in Georgia, India, Indonesia, Namibia, and Zimbabwe.
  • Outbreak of Yersinia pestis in China.
  • Outbreak of Ebola in the Sudan.
  • Outbreak of Tularemia on Martha’s Vineyard.

Progress was made this year in developing the following countermeasures:

  • Drugs – development of new drugs continued for the treatment of anthrax.
  • Vaccines – development continued on new vaccines against anthrax, ricin, smallpox, viral hemorrhagic fevers and yersinia pestis.
  • Diagnostics – development continued on new diagnostic tests for anthrax and botulinum toxin.

Several recurring themes were identified throughout this year’s biodefense news stories:

  • The chronic underfunding of the US public health system, in spite of clear evidence of the dangers of this. This underfunding leads to a lack of readiness in state public health departments as documented in reports by the Government Accounting Office and The Trust for America’s Health and the Centers for Disease Control in February, The Department of Defense in March, the Agency for Research and Quality in May, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials in June, and the Trust for America’s Health again in December.
  • The controversy over the safety of the US military’s current anthrax vaccine and whether it should be administered to US military personnel.
  • The looming threat of the emergence of new infectious diseases, as evidenced by the monkeypox outbreak. Emerging infectious diseases, which have shaped the course of humanity and caused incalculable suffering and death, will continue to confront society in unpredictable ways as long as humans and microbes co-exist.
  • Preventing research which can lead to the development of new genetically engineered virulent infectious diseases is impossible.
  • The looming threat from unemployed Russian bioweaponeers who may be selling their services to the highest bidders.
  • The concern about safety voiced by individuals who are going to have biodefense laboratories built in their neighborhoods, best evidenced by the residents of Boston’s South End.
  • The controversy over whether biodefense research should be conducted in secrecy or in the open, and how to balance the openness of scientific research with the potential dangerous uses it can be put to, as articulated by the National Academies Press.
  • Project Bioshield is a good start, but not a panacea, towards the development of biodefense countermeasures by pharmaceutical corporations.
  • The operational deployment, refinement and integration of automated disease surveillance programs:
    • BioSense, run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is designed to pick up signals of potential health emergencies as close to the onset as possible by focusing on symptoms and searching for unusual patterns or clusters.
    • National Electronic Disease Surveillance System, run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with more than a dozen states participating. The system focuses on diagnosed health conditions that are reported to local and state public health agencies. Sophisticated analytical tools are built in, making it possible to examine disease trends by county, city or ZIP code.
    • BioWatch, run by the Department of Homeland Security, is a network of air sensors in 31 cities that are sniffing for toxic substances. They suck in air, and the air is monitored based on a type of diagnostic technology known as polymerase chain reaction, or PCR.
    • Guardian, run by the Department of Defense, similar to BioWatch.
    • Essence, run by the Department of Defense, daily culls data from the electronic health records of military personnel, evaluating them for signs of possible outbreaks.
    • Global Public Health Intelligence Network, run by the Public Health Agency of Canada, monitors global media sources (such as news wires and web sites), then gathers and disseminates relevant information on such topics as disease outbreaks, infectious diseases, contaminated food and water, bio-terrorism and exposure to chemical and radio-nuclear agents, and natural disasters. It works with a number of languages including Arabic, English, French, Russian, Simplified and Traditional Chinese, and Spanish.
  • The importance of simulations – aka biodefense wargames – in learning how to respond to a biological warfare attack – such as Global Mercury, Topoff 2, and Dark Winter.
  • The question of whether doing biodefense research is more hassle than it is worth, in terms of obtaining the necessary security clearances. Many scientists are beginning to think so. Witness the seriousness of the US government in prosecuting an expert on plague who caused a bioterrorism scare in January 2003 when he reported plague bacteria missing from his laboratory at Texas Tech University.
  • The question of whether too much is being invested in biodefense research, to the detriment of research in cancer, etc.
  • The vulnerability of the US food supply to agroterrorism, and the initial steps being taken to protect the US food supply.

Finally???
The mysterious story of the year was the continued inability of the US to identify the individual(s) responsible for the ricin attacks of 2004 as well as the individual(s) responsible for the anthrax attacks of September 2001, coupled to the legal jousting between the US government and “person of interest” Steven Hatfill.

The most surprising story of the year was the absence of evidence that Iraq possessed biological weapons at the time of the US invasion in March 2003.

The most sobering story of the year was the difficulty of decontaminating old biological warfare testing grounds as well as the buildings involved in the 2001 anthrax attacks, which shows how difficult and costly it is to clean up after a biological attack.

The most chilling story of the year is whether Russia, as it closes itself off to West, is reconstituting its bioweapons program.


more…

Editorial Note – February 26-December 31, 2004 Archive Now Available

Tuesday, January 18th, 2005

An archive of BiodefenseEducation.org from February 26, 2004 – December 31, 2004 is available here.
more…

Editorial Note

Saturday, January 15th, 2005

BiodefenseEducation.org will next be updated on Tuesday January 18. See you then!

Editorial Note – Archive for February – December 2004

Friday, January 7th, 2005

An archive of BiodefenseEducation.org from February 25 – December 31, 2004 is available here.

The previous archive from January 1 – February 24, 2004 is available here.
more…

Editorial Note – Year-End Request for Comments and Feedback

Tuesday, January 4th, 2005

We are in the process of evaluating BiodefenseEducation.org, in order to help improve it for our users.

Therefore, we would like to ask you to take a minute to fill out the Comment Form and share your thoughts with us. The more feedback and comments we get, the better BiodefenseEducation.org becomes. Thanks in advance!
more…

Editorial Note – Terrorism

Sunday, November 28th, 2004

Why the recent articles related to terrorism, and what does this have to do with biodefense, you may ask. From time to time I will link to articles on terrorism, to provide background on the individuals most likely to use biological agents as weapons in the future.

Editorial Note – One last request for comments

Saturday, October 23rd, 2004

Thanks to all of you who have sent your comments about the site. We’d still love to hear from a few more users who use BiodefenseEducation.org; specifically we’d love to learn how you use the site to help you in your daily work. Please take a minute to fill out our Comment Form — Thanks!
more…

Editorial Note – Your Comments Are Requested

Tuesday, October 19th, 2004

We are in the process of evaluating BiodefenseEducation.org, in order to help improve it for our users.

Therefore, we would like to ask you to take a minute to fill out the Comment Form and share your thoughts with us. The more feedback we get, the better BiodefenseEducation.org becomes. Thanks in advance!
more…

Editorial Note – Request for User Comments

Thursday, June 3rd, 2004

BiodefenseEducation.org is entering its sixth month of operation. Could we please ask you to take a minute and fill out our Comment Form so that we may improve the site and your user experience. Thanks in advance!
more…

Editorial Note – Archive January to February 2004

Wednesday, February 25th, 2004

BiodefenseEducation.org’s style is undergoing a revision, starting today.

We have created our first Archive file to make it easier for you to review all the stories from January 1, 2004 through today. Click on the Archive link at the bottom of the page or on the left side of the page to get to it.
more…


To read news stories from previous months and years, use the calendar in the upper right hand corner of the page or use the Archive.

BiodefenseEducation.org is curated by Donna M. D'Alessandro, M.D. and Michael P. D'Alessandro, M.D.

Please send us comments by filling out our Comment Form.

All contents copyright © 2003-2009 by Donna M. D'Alessandro, M.D. and Michael P. D'Alessandro, M.D. All rights reserved.

'BiodefenseEducation.org' is a Trademark of Donna M. D'Alessandro, M.D. and Michael P. D'Alessandro, M.D.

BiodefenseEducation.org is part of The University of Iowa's Planning Regional Center of Excellence for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases and is funded in part by a grant from the National Institute of Health's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Advertising is not accepted.

Your personal information remains confidential and is not sold, leased, or given to any third party be they reliable or not.

This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.

The information contained in BiodefenseEducation.org is not a substitute for the medical care and advice of your physician. There may be variations in treatment that your physician may recommend based on individual facts and circumstances.

URL: http://www.biodefenseeducation.org/