Blind spots in biodefense.

In October, the Biden administration released its National Biodefense Strategy (NBS-22), the first update since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Although the document notes that one of the lessons of the pandemic is that threats originating anywhere are threats everywhere, it frames threats as largely external to the United States. NBS-22 focuses primarily on bioterrorism and laboratory accidents, neglecting threats posed by routine practices of animal use and production inside the United States. NBS-22 references zoonotic disease but assures readers that no new legal authorities or institutional innovations are needed. Although the US is not alone in failing to confront these risks, its failure to comprehensively address them echoes across the globe.

Surveillance of emerging infectious diseases for biosecurity.

Emerging infectious diseases, such as COVID-19, continue to pose significant threats to human beings and their surroundings. In addition, biological warfare, bioterrorism, biological accidents, and harmful consequences arising from dual-use biotechnology also pose a challenge for global biosecurity. Improving the early surveillance capabilities is necessary for building a common biosecurity shield for the global community of health for all. Furthermore, surveillance could provide early warning and situational awareness of biosecurity risks. However, current surveillance systems face enormous challenges, including technical shortages, fragmented management, and limited international cooperation. Detecting emerging biological risks caused by unknown or novel pathogens is of particular concern. Surveillance systems must be enhanced to effectively mitigate biosecurity risks. Thus, a global strategy of meaningful cooperation based on efficient integration of surveillance at all levels, including interdisciplinary integration of techniques and interdepartmental integration for effective management, is urgently needed. In this paper, we review the biosecurity risks by analyzing potential factors at all levels globally. In addition to describing biosecurity risks and their impact on global security, we also focus on analyzing the challenges to traditional surveillance and propose suggestions on how to integrate current technologies and resources to conduct effective global surveillance.

Biodefence research two decades on: worth the investment?

For the past 20 years, the notion of bioterror has been a source of considerable fear and panic worldwide. In response to the terror attacks of 2001 in the USA, extensive research funding was awarded to investigate bioterror-related pathogens. The global scientific legacy of this funding has extended into the present day, highlighted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Unsurprisingly, the surge in biodefence-related research and preparedness has been met with considerable apprehension and opposition. Here, we briefly outline the history of modern bioterror threats and biodefence research, describe the scientific legacy of biodefence research by highlighting advances pertaining to specific bacterial and viral pathogens, and summarise the future of biodefence research and its relevance today. We sought to address the sizeable question: have the past 20 years of investment into biodefence research and preparedness been worth it? The legacy of modern biodefence funding includes advancements in biosecurity, biosurveillence, diagnostics, medical countermeasures, and vaccines. In summary, we feel that these advances justify the substantial biodefence funding trend of the past two decades and set a precedent for future funding.

The Emergency Use Authorization of Pharmaceuticals: History and Utility During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) originated in 2004 because of the need for emergency medical countermeasures (MCMs) against potential bioterrorist attacks. The EUA also proved useful in dealing with subsequent pandemics and has emerged as a critical regulatory pathway for therapeutics and vaccines throughout the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. With the EUA process in the USA, we witnessed emergency authorizations, their expansions, as well as withdrawal of previously authorized products, which exemplifies the dynamic nature of scientific review of EUA products. EUAs proved vital for the first group of COVID-19 vaccines, including the temporary pause of one vaccine while emergency safety issues were evaluated. Although this review on the EUA is primarily focused on the USA, distinctions were made with other jurisdictions such as Europe and Canada with respect to the emergency authorizations of the vaccines. Finally, we discuss some important differences following EUA and formal new drug/vaccine application (NDA/BLA) approvals.

Approaches, Successes, and Challenges in Recruiting Closed Points of Dispensing Sites: A Qualitative Study.

Closed points of dispensing (PODs) are an essential component of local public health preparedness programs because most local public health agencies lack the infrastructure to distribute medical countermeasures to all community members in a short period of time through open PODs alone. However, no study has examined closed POD recruitment strategies or approaches to determine best practices, such as how to select or recruit an agency, group, or business to become a closed POD site once a potential partner has been identified. We conducted qualitative interviews with US disaster planners to identify their approaches and challenges to recruiting closed POD sites. In total, 16 disaster planners participated. Recruitment considerations related to selecting sites, paperwork needed, and challenges faced in recruiting closed POD sites. Important selection criteria for sites included size, agencies or businesses with vulnerable or confined populations who lack access or ability to get to or through open POD sites, and critical infrastructure organizations. Major challenges to recruitment included difficulty convincing sites of closed POD importance, obstacles with recruiting sites that can administer mass vaccination, and fear of legal repercussions related to medical countermeasure dispensing or administration. Closed POD recruitment is a frequently challenging but highly necessary process both before and during the current pandemic. These recommendations can be used by other disaster planners intending to start or expand their closed POD network. Public health agencies should continue working toward improved distribution plans for medical countermeasures, both oral and vaccine, to minimize morbidity and mortality during mass casualty events.

80 questions for UK biological security.

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

Antivirals in medical biodefense.

The viruses historically implicated or currently considered as candidates for misuse in bioterrorist events are poxviruses, filoviruses, bunyaviruses, orthomyxoviruses, paramyxoviruses and a number of arboviruses causing encephalitis, including alpha- and flaviviruses. All these viruses are of concern for public health services when they occur in natural outbreaks or emerge in unvaccinated populations. Recent events and intelligence reports point to a growing risk of dangerous biological agents being used for nefarious purposes. Public health responses effective in natural outbreaks of infectious disease may not be sufficient to deal with the severe consequences of a deliberate release of such agents. One important aspect of countermeasures against viral biothreat agents are the antiviral treatment options available for use in post-exposure prophylaxis. These issues were adressed by the organizers of the 16th Medical Biodefense Conference, held in Munich in 2018, in a special session on the development of drugs to treat infections with viruses currently perceived as a threat to societies or associated with a potential for misuse as biothreat agents. This review will outline the state-of-the-art methods in antivirals research discussed and provide an overview of antiviral compounds in the pipeline that are already approved for use or still under development.