|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Response: Microbial Forensic Capability Needed, Experts Say By Mike Nartker While acts of biological terrorism, such as the autumn 2001 anthrax attacks, are rare, they have shown that authorities have difficulty identifying those responsible and gathering evidence suitable for a criminal prosecution, according to the report, released here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Investigators should be able to call on trained microbiologists, who rarely participate in criminal prosecutions, the report says. “If not us, who?” Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, told Global Security Newswire yesterday. Public health scientists need to learn proper evidence handling techniques so that samples can be used in a later criminal prosecution, Benjamin said, adding that specimens from bioterrorism acts are likely to make their way through the public health system. Scientists do not want to be responsible for allowing the perpetrator of such an act to go unpunished, he said. Therefore, the United States needs to develop better systems to track and detect suspicious outbreaks of diseases and to gather evidence during the course of an investigation, the report says. “Developing systems and methods to detect and track bioattacks will lead to greater safety and security for our nation against international terrorists,” the report says. “But it will also benefit the investigation of all biocrimes, including those carried out in a personal matter,” it adds. At the scene of a biological attack, law enforcement and public health officials need to be trained to both protect those on-site from infection and to properly gather evidence, according to the report. To do this, permanent communication and cross-discipline education programs need to be created for both types of personnel, it says. In addition, certain first responders in each community should received forensics training and panels of experts with knowledge of pathogens that could be used in attack should be created in order to provide additional expertise if needed. Those who will be the first to arrive on the scene of a suspected biological attack will also need to be trained in how to properly recover pieces of possible evidence, the report says. It recommends that standard operating procedures be developed for the collection, storage, and documentation of samples so they can be used later in a criminal prosecution. Such procedures could be based on the FBI’s evidence-gathering standards. During the course of an investigation, it will also become important to identify both the pathogen used and its source, the report says. To do this, a national disease surveillance network should be established for both humans and animals to detect suspicious outbreaks (see GSN, Jan. 23). Such a network could be based on the PulseNet surveillance system, which tracks outbreaks of food-borne diseases. Test kits should be created to better identify pathogens, according to the report. The United States should encourage private development of these kits through increased research funding, it says. The United States also needs to develop an improved capability to differentiate between intentionally caused outbreaks and naturally occurring diseases, according to the report. To do this, databases should be created that include information on pathogens that occur regionally and those that would raise suspicion by their presence. For example, while anthrax occurs naturally in regions with large livestock industries, the 2001 outbreaks in urban areas of Florida and the northeast United States raised immediate suspicion. Genetic sequencing is another tool that can be developed to help identify an attack pathogen and to help locate its source, the report says. Such methods have been used during the course of the investigation into the autumn 2001 anthrax attacks. The report recommends that more complete genomic sequencing of all possible biological terrorism agents such be done to assist in identification. High priority pathogens should have up to 20 strains sequenced to better understand the biological variation between them, the report says. The United States should also compile a national strain repository to establish a centralized repository of live cultures and reference strains, the report says. U.S. authorities should conduct frequent re-evaluations of priority lists of agents that could be used in a biological attack, according to the report. By doing so, they could better determine what pathogens would be attractive to terrorists. These re-evaluations should also consider pathogens that could cause economic damage, as well as those that could cause mass casualties. Those pathogens that can cause easily communicable diseases and those for which there are no vaccines or treatments should be given a higher priority, it says. Plant, animal and food-borne pathogens should be given more attention than they are currently, where the focus is more on military agents, the report adds (see GSN, Feb. 3). The United States should also create a pyramid system of microbial forensics laboratories, which is currently “nonexistent,” the report says. Such a system could be based on the Laboratory Response Network, which is a four-tiered system of U.S. laboratories with the capability to conduct progressively more complex procedures — ranging from hospital and commercial reference laboratories at the bottom of the pyramid to a relatively few laboratories that can perform a wide range of tests, including genomic sequencing. The United States also needs better education and training of scientists, law enforcement officials and first responders, according to the report. Microbiologists need to receive forensics training, while forensic personnel should be trained in microbiology, it says. Public health personnel should also receive forensic training to take advantage of the existing architecture. In addition, first responders also need to be better trained in biological safety and criminal investigation procedures, the report says. “In most cases, first responders will not be trained in knowing how to deal with a potential biocrime scene,” the report says. “Education is key to inform likely first responders how to determine whether there might be a biological threat,” it adds. Experts agreed of the need to train microbiologists and public health scientists in forensic methods so they would be better able to investigate an act of biological terrorism. This would require additional funding, however, said APHA’s Benjamin. “The real issue here” is whether public health officials will receive increased resources, such as higher numbers of laboratory technicians, to handle the increased forensics responsibilities, he said. To better allocate such limited resources, Benjamin recommended creating “centers of excellence” — laboratories that would focus on microbial forensics. Either the public or private sector could operate such facilities, he said. The United States is already on its way to being better able to investigate acts of bioterrorism, Benjamin said. Necessary technologies, such as genetic information libraries and an information-sharing infrastructure, already exist he said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, along with the FBI, have already begun conduct courses in epidemiological forensics, which train scientists in detecting suspicious disease outbreaks and determining if they were intentionally caused, he said. Benjamin predicted that within the next two years there would likely be a new, aggressive capability, to track down biological terrorists.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
