Actionable knowledge and strategic decision making for bio- and agroterrorism threats: building a collaborative early warning culture.

Current trends in biosecurity and cybersecurity include (1) the wide availability of technology and specialized knowledge that previously were available only to governments; (2) the global economic recession, which may increase the spread of radical non-state actors; and (3) recent US and EU commission reports that reflect concerns about non-state actors in asymmetric threats. The intersectoral and international nature of bioterrorism and agroterrorism threats requires collaboration across several sectors including intelligence, police, forensics, customs, and other law enforcement organizations who must work together with public and animal health organizations as well as environmental and social science organizations. This requires coordinated decision making among these organizations, based on actionable knowledge and information sharing. The risk of not sharing information among organizations compared to the benefit of sharing information can be considered in an "information sharing risk-benefit analysis" to prevent a terrorism incident from occurring and to build a rapid response capability. In the EU project AniBioThreat, early warning is the main topic in work package 3 (WP 3). A strategy has been generated based on an iterative approach to bring law enforcement agencies and human and animal health institutes together. Workshops and exercises have taken place during the first half of the project, and spin-off activities include new preparedness plans for institutes and the formation of a legal adviser network for decision making. In addition, a seminar on actionable knowledge was held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 2012, which identified the need to bring various agency cultures together to work on developing a resilient capability to identify early signs of bio- and agroterrorism threats. The seminar concluded that there are a number of challenges in building a collaborative culture, including developing an education program that supports collaboration and shared situational awareness.

Strategic dilemmas of biosecurity in the European Union.

Systems for societal/homeland security in both Europe and the United States are in flux to adjust to 21st century threats, such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, regional conflicts, state failures, and organized crime. It is important that reforms take place on both sides of the Atlantic that recognize the interdependence of Europe and the United States. Security, including biosecurity, for Europe is strongly connected to security in the U.S. Diseases transcend borders, and their consequences can be the same, irrespective of where the outbreak occurs or whether it is a natural occurrence or an act of bioterrorism. This article examines the political and strategic dilemmas and complexities that would confront the European Union (EU) in the event of a bioterrorism attack or a naturally occurring outbreak. Although several initiatives have been taken by the 15 member states and within the EU Commission, the EU is not institutionally prepared for transnational, rapidly moving diseases that could cause grave consequences in Europe and other regions, including the U.S. The prime responsibility for protecting European citizens against outbreaks rests with each member state. However, with intertwined and open European societies, the consequences would likely spill across borders. The EU Commission would have to become involved because such aspects as the internal market and freedom of movement would be affected. Responsibility, but not authority, would be pushed to the top. A coordinated EU response to such crises depends on European political leadership.