An effort similar to the Manhattan Project — in which American-led R&D produced the first nuclear weapons during World War II — is needed now in defense against the growing global threats posed by infectious diseases and bioterrorism, sources said Thursday during a Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense meeting.
“We are at a decided disadvantage when it comes to defending against a biological threat,” said former U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman, who co-chairs the biodefense study panel. “No matter what the source, the nation and the world are at catastrophic biological risk from terrorist attacks and infectious diseases. We have a responsibility to act now to prevent the worst from happening in the future.”
Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense members, witness panelists and attendees at the panel’s first public meeting held yesterday in New York City discussed “A Manhattan Project for Biodefense: Taking Biological Threats Off the Table,” a proposed national, public-private research and development undertaking that would defend the United States against biological threats.
“We highly endorse such an endeavor in the sense of it’s time to say, ‘Go big or go home’ on this issue,” said Dr. Robert Kadlec, U.S. Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), during the second panel.
“Quite frankly, there’s been a lot of work and a lot of good progress that’s been made … but I think it’s time for a frame shift,” he added. “The world has changed dramatically. I think … it’s going to take some dramatic action to get us to where we need to be.”
Kadlec said the U.S. is “on the precipice of some very bad things as it relates to the Ebola outbreak” in the Democratic Republic of Congo and challenges also exist regarding other emerging infectious diseases, like the H7 and H9 viruses and the swine flu, to name a few.
Add to the priority list antimicrobial resistance, advanced chemical threats, and the risks associated with synthetic biology and the landscape is ever-changing, Kadlec said.
A new Manhattan Project on Biodefense should consider myriad topics, including a definition of needed capabilities to deal with many crisis issues, Kadlec suggested, such as rapid responses to identifying a pathogen or agent and developing diagnostics and potential medical countermeasures (MCMs).
The project also should include consideration of the scale of response, how to secure domestic production capacity while also supporting the related supply chain, and ensuring the delivery and administration of MCMs, among other capabilities, he said.
“A future Manhattan Project’s gotta be big, it’s gotta be comprehensive and it’s got to be looking at all of these pieces,” Kadlec said.
Because New York City has been on the front lines preparing for and responding to biological incidents, several representatives also contributed their experiences and thoughts about a future Manhattan Project for Biodefense during another panel session.
John O’Connell, deputy chief and commanding officer of the counterterrorism division for the New York Police Department (NYPD), pointed to some challenges that the department has had interacting with the federal government to achieve adequate biodefense of the city.
O’Connell said a future project should include federal, state and local level coordination, more federal resources, access by outside entities like the NYPD to certain classified federal information, and related policy to support these such efforts enacted by Congress.
“Biothreats are real,” O’Connell said, “and it takes concerted efforts to combat them. We all need to remain proactive and be ready to respond.”
Beth Maldin Morgenthau, deputy commissioner of the Office of Preparedness and Response at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, noted that with a population of roughly 8.6 million, New York City is one of the nation’s highest-risk jurisdictions for a bioterrorism attack. She said it’s also essential that federal funding remain consistent.
Supplemental funding from Congress oftentimes doesn’t cut it, she said, because it usually lags an immediate need because it’s appropriated months after Congress authorizes it. “It should be long-term, new funding and not diverted from other vital programs,” Morgenthau added.
Private-sector representatives also joined the discussion on Thursday during an after-lunch panel session.
Monique Mansoura, executive director of Global Health Security and Biotechnology at the MITRE Corp., agreed that a new Manhattan Project is a good idea, but there are other events that also may contribute important lessons learned, such as the Human Genome Project, what she called “a stunningly successful scientific project that addressed the ethical, legal and social implications of the science” behind such an endeavor, including what the project meant to people and what the possible misuses of the science would be, for instance.
Having worked on that project, as well as for Novartis AG and HHS, Mansoura said she has learned that creating a public-private partnership to oversee such a project wouldn’t just be presented with science challenges. “There are also business challenges” that would have to be considered, she said.
“Ideally, the federal government would step up and fully fund” such a project, Mansoura said, “but if not, I think we would have to be really innovative in our business models and in our scientific endeavors, as well.”