|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 73
3
Challenges in the Research and Development of
Medical Countermeasures Against
Biological Warfare Agents
T he policy and organizational changes that the committee has recom-
mended for the Department of Defense (DoD) are a portion of what
needs to be done to permit more effective progress toward the devel-
opment and licensure of medical biodefense countermeasures. But DoD,
along with others working to develop medical countermeasures, has to
confront other important challenges as well. Academia and private sector
firms are essential partners in government efforts to discover, develop,
and manufacture medical countermeasures. However, various factors,
including concerns about potential liability risks, have deterred the phar-
maceutical industry from becoming involved in producing these special-
ized products that have limited commercial markets.
The regulatory process and the role of the Food and Drug Adminis-
tration (FDA) also require attention. Determining the efficacy of
biodefense products poses special challenges because ethical constraints
prevent efficacy testing in humans. The adoption in 2002 of the "Animal
Efficacy Rule," the regulatory mechanism that permits efficacy data to be
obtained from tests using animals (FDA, 2002b), opens a pathway to li-
censure. However, extensive research and testing will be needed to guide
the application of this new regulatory tool. Furthermore, expediting the
testing and review of high-priority biodefense products places heavy de-
mands on FDA resources.
In addition, accelerating the development and testing of countermea-
sures will require ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of non-
human primates and other laboratory animals, specialized laboratory fa-
cilities with appropriate biosafety features, and facilities in which test lots
73
OCR for page 74
74 GIVING FULL MEASURE TO COUNTERMEASURES
of candidate countermeasures can be produced in compliance with FDA
standards for current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP). The nation
also faces a limited supply of scientific and technical personnel with the
expertise needed to carry out the work at many stages in the development
of medical countermeasures (Partnership for Public Service, 2003).
In this chapter, the committee reviews these challenges and recom-
mends steps that DoD, acting principally through the proposed Medical
Biodefense Agency, should take on its own or in collaboration with
others.
ENGAGING ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRY
Under the new DoD organization recommended by the committee,
partnerships with the academic community and with biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies will be crucial to the success of the medical
countermeasure development program. Early research and discovery
leading to new candidates for vaccine and drug countermeasures should
involve both intramural and extramural work, with the mix determined
on the basis of assessments by the DoD program's leadership of the most
effective way to achieve programmatic goals.
With no government-owned facilities for full-scale vaccine or drug
manufacturing, collaboration with experienced commercial partners is
essential to move candidate countermeasures through the final stages of
product development and licensure and into production. In addition, ac-
cess to manufacturing expertise during the early stages of product devel-
opment can help avoid wasted effort and inappropriate commitment of
resources.
At present, DoD's Joint Vaccine Acquisition Program has a contract
with the DynPort Vaccine Company LLC (DVC) to develop and license
biological defense vaccines for the U.S. armed forces. DVC does not have
vaccine production facilities of its own but instead contracts with compa-
nies possessing the necessary facilities and expertise.
Potential Obstacles to DoD Partnerships with Academia and Industry
DoD's need to collaborate with academia and industry in the devel-
opment of medical countermeasures is clear. However, the discussions at
the committee's public meetings, testimony to congressional committees,
and comments in other contexts have highlighted factors that discourage
collaboration with DoD as well as other government agencies that are
exploring ways to encourage industry participation in the development
and production of medical countermeasures to be used against bioterrorist
OCR for page 75
CHALLENGES IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 75
threats (e.g., Aventis Pasteur, 2002; Defense Science Board, 2000; Read,
2003; Top et al., 2000).
Factors of concern to both academia and industry include the follow-
ing:
· Complex and cumbersome contracting requirements
· Potential instability of government funding because of the annual
appropriations process
· Exposure to financial risks for product liability claims
· Restrictions on work with pathogens designated as select agents1
· Lack of appreciation within DoD of the true costs of vaccine and
drug development
Factors primarily influencing larger pharmaceutical firms include the
following:
· Short-term opportunity costs in diverting limited manufacturing
capacity and skilled personnel from other projects
· Limited potential to obtain revenue or large profit margins from
government contracting
· A small or uncertain market beyond government purchases
· Antitrust restrictions that limit collaboration among firms
In light of the mixture of challenges that exist, several approaches or
potential solutions have been proposed. The committee makes recommen-
dations regarding some of these options below.
Full Use of Existing Grant and Contract Mechanisms
The committee expects the proposed Medical Biodefense Agency to
make full use of all means at its disposal to ensure that the most suitable
organization conducts the work needed to achieve program goals. Ex-
amples of the types of agreements that might be employed are listed in
Box 3-1. The current Medical Biological Defense Research Program,
1As mandated by the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act
of 2002 (P.L. 107-188), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) must maintain
a list of "select agents," that is, biological agents and toxins considered to pose a public
health or agricultural threat. As directed by P.L. 107-188, CDC (2002) has established re-
quirements regarding the possession and use of select agents. These requirements concern
registration, security risk assessments, safety plans, security plans, emergency response
plans, training, transfers, record keeping, inspections, and notifications.
OCR for page 76
76 GIVING FULL MEASURE TO COUNTERMEASURES
BOX 3-1
Mechanisms for Engaging Academic Institutions, Industry, and
Others in the Private Sector in Federally Funded
Research and Development
· Grants
· Contracts
· Cooperative Agreements
· Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants of up to $850,000
available to small, for-profit businesses for early stage research and devel-
opment
· Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants of up to $600,000
available to fund cooperative efforts between small businesses and U.S.
research institutions for early stage research and development
· Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) to
conduct research and development in a technical area of mutual interest to
federal laboratories and a nonfederal party (industry, university, not-for-
profit organization, or state or local government)
· Dual-Use Science and Technology (DUS&T) development projects
under which dual-use technology research or development is carried out
sharing the costs between DoD and nongovernmental entities
· Other Transactions: mechanisms other than a contract, grant, or
cooperative agreement used with commercial firms that do not normally
contract with DoD. They generally do not require compliance with federal
laws and regulations that apply to procurement contracts, grants, and/or
cooperative agreements.
SOURCES: http://www.acq.osd.mil/sadbu/sbir/overview/index.htm.; Dual
Use Science & Technology Process: Why Should Your Program Be In-
volved? May 2002. http://www.dtic.mil/dust/dust_process_02.pdf; http:
//www.dtic.mil/dust/; http://www.acq.osd.mil/cp/winegar_8-8-02_missouri
stconf.pdf; Other Transaction Authority (OTA) for Prototype Projects. http:
//www.acq.osd.mil/dp/dsps/ot/dspsot.htm; all accessed 8.13.03.
through which basic research and early product testing are supported,
makes use of many of these mechanisms. Roughly 40 percent of the
planned budget allocation for fiscal year (FY) 2003 was for support of
extramural efforts, including a portion of the core program and all of the
projects requested by Congress or transferred from the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (Henchal, 2003; Linden, 2003).
OCR for page 77
CHALLENGES IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 77
The committee emphasizes in particular the usefulness of "other
transaction" authority as a way to gain greater flexibility in the agreement
process. This mechanism is specifically intended to facilitate collabora-
tions with commercial firms that are not traditional DoD contractors, and
it has been used successfully for this purpose by DARPA (Tether, 2002).
"Other transactions" include any kind of transaction other than a con-
tract, grant, or cooperative agreement. Their use is authorized for DoD
research projects by 10 U.S.C. 2371 and for prototype projects relevant to
weapons or weapons systems by section 845 of the National Defense Au-
thorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (P.L. 103-160). The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (P.L. 108-136), which was signed
into law in late 2003 as this report was being completed, explicitly extends
the authority for "other transactions for prototype projects" related to de-
fense against nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack. Agree-
ments under this authority are usually exempt from the federal acquisi-
tion laws and regulations that apply to standard contracts, grants, and
cooperative agreements (see DoD, no date a; 2001; GAO, 2002).
5. The Medical Biodefense Agency should fully utilize "other trans-
actions" authority as a means of encouraging academia and private
sector firms to participate in the research and development of medi-
cal biodefense countermeasures to meet DoD needs.
Stability of funding for those awarded contracts and grants is another
important consideration for potential partners. The committee urges mea-
sures to enable the Medical Biodefense Agency to make long-term com-
mitments of funds to its awardees in a manner that would expedite pro-
gram execution, but would do so in an economically efficient way. The
authority to sign multiyear contracts without full funding of termination
liabilities would allow DoD to contract for the full scope of a project last-
ing more than one year, but to budget for the project over several years as
fiscal obligations become due.
6. Congress should authorize the Medical Biodefense Agency to
sign multiyear contracts without a requirement for full, up-front
funding of any termination liabilities.
New Tools Available to DoD
DoD is not alone in its need to form partnerships with potentially
reluctant private companies to obtain medical countermeasures for
biodefense. Plans to acquire countermeasures for a national stockpile for
defense against bioterrorism also depend on commercial firms' being will-
OCR for page 78
78 GIVING FULL MEASURE TO COUNTERMEASURES
ing to complete development of and produce the vaccines and drugs to be
included. For much of 2003, it was expected that Congress would pass
legislation to implement Project Bioshield, a Bush administration proposal
to address some of the potential obstacles to participation by commercial
firms and to help speed certain research management and product pro-
curement processes.
The Project BioShield proposal included three principal features: (1)
relaxing acquisition procedures for procuring property or services in sup-
port of research and development for biomedical countermeasures and
expediting the peer review process for Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements; (2) allow-
ing DHHS to contract to purchase countermeasures that are still undergo-
ing clinical testing; and (3) providing for emergency use of countermea-
sures not yet approved by FDA (Gottron, 2003).
As of December 2003, legislation to authorize Project BioShield had
passed in the House (H.R. 2122) but was pending in the Senate (S. 15 and
S. 1504) (Gottron, 2003). However, other legislation already approved by
Congress has enacted some elements of the BioShield proposal. The ap-
propriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)2 makes
$5,593 million available until September 30, 2013, for securing biodefense
countermeasures. Of this amount, up to $3,418 million may be obligated
during FY 2004 through 2008 and up to $890 million may be obligated in
FY 2004.
In addition, and of particular importance for DoD, are the BioShield-
like provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2004 (P.L. 108-136). The extension of "other transactions" authority, which
is not limited to DoD, has already been noted. The legislation also in-
cludes a general provision authorizing increased financial thresholds for
the use of simplified acquisition procedures "to facilitate the defense
against or recovery from nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological at-
tack against the United States" (Sec. 1443).
Other provisions of P.L. 108-136 apply specifically to DoD. Section
1601 includes provisions authorizing the Secretary of Defense to use
streamlined acquisition procedures, "when appropriate," in procuring
property or services for use in performing, administering, or supporting
research and development of biomedical countermeasures. (Provisions
related to laboratory construction and personnel are noted later in this
chapter.) Section 1602 directs the Secretary of Defense to identify and pro-
cure for a DoD stockpile the biomedical countermeasures needed to pro-
2Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year end-
ing September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, P.L. 108-90 (2003).
OCR for page 79
CHALLENGES IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 79
tect members of the armed forces against leading biological, nuclear,
chemical, and radiological threats. Procurement is limited to "qualified
countermeasures" that are (1) already approved by FDA or judged by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services as likely to qualify for such ap-
proval and (2) considered feasible to produce and deliver in the quantities
needed by DoD within 5 years. The Secretary of Defense is authorized to
use an interagency agreement with DHS and DHHS to obtain counter-
measures for DoD from the Strategic National Stockpile and to transfer
funds to the other agencies to cover the cost of replenishing the stockpile.
The legislation establishes no formal requirement that manufacturers of
countermeasures obtained for the DoD stockpile ensure that those prod-
ucts ultimately receive FDA approval. Section 1603 is covered later in the
chapter in the discussion of emergency use of medical countermeasures
by DoD.
It is difficult to anticipate whether the added funding and procure-
ment authorities enacted so far--or the BioShield proposals, if passed and
signed into law--will provide sufficient incentive for industry to enter
into development agreements with DoD or DHHS. However, the relax-
ation of acquisition procedures, expedited peer review, and market guar-
antees appear to be constructive steps toward addressing some of the con-
cerns of the private sector.
Some argue, however, that additional incentives will be needed (e.g.,
Barbaro, 2003; Ludlam, 2003; Read, 2003; Ryan, 2003). For example, nei-
ther the DoD authorization legislation nor the BioShield bills address in-
dustry concerns regarding the need for indemnification against product
liability claims. The proposed Biological, Chemical, and Radiological
Weapons Countermeasures Research Act (S. 666), introduced in March
2003, is one attempt to try to address some of these other concerns, includ-
ing tax and intellectual property rights considerations, liability concerns,
limited antitrust exemptions, and incentives to increase research and
manufacturing capacity. As of December 2003, neither the Senate nor the
House had acted on this bill.
Liability Considerations
Most medical biodefense countermeasures are likely to receive FDA
approval under the Animal Efficacy Rule and, thus, without direct evi-
dence of efficacy in humans. Moreover, unlike products developed for a
commercial market, most of the biodefense vaccines and some of the
therapeutic products will be purchased only by government agencies and
used only at the direction of those agencies. For major pharmaceutical
firms, the possibility of substantial financial loss through product liability
claims is a significant deterrent to their willingness to apply their exper-
OCR for page 80
80 GIVING FULL MEASURE TO COUNTERMEASURES
tise and resources to the development of new countermeasures. Smaller
companies may initially be willing to accept greater financial risk, but
they also have fewer resources to sustain their efforts to develop new
products. Concerns about liability may extend as well to university re-
searchers and other not-for-profit research organizations.
Having heard from biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry rep-
resentatives and from a consumer advocate, the committee is persuaded
that it is important for the government to address industry concerns about
product liability risks as part of efforts to accelerate the development of
medical biodefense countermeasures.
Among the possible alternatives is the approach adopted under the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 for the use of the smallpox vaccine.3 When
the vaccine is administered in response to an appropriate declaration by
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the vaccine manufacturer, as
well as health care organizations and individuals involved in administer-
ing the vaccine, are deemed to be employees of the Public Health Service
for purposes of any liability claims. Suits for personal injuries allegedly
caused by the vaccine must be brought against the federal government,
which may seek recovery against manufacturers and other covered per-
sons only for gross negligence, illegal conduct, willful misconduct, or vio-
lations of government contract provisions. This is similar to the legisla-
tion enacted in 1976 (P.L. 94-380) in response to liability and insurance
concerns raised in connection with the swine flu program.
The Homeland Security Act also included the "Support of Anti-ter-
rorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002," referred to as the
SAFETY Act. The SAFETY Act includes a provision limiting the tort liabil-
ity to sellers of designated antiterrorism technologies and providing for
the use of the "government contractor defense,"4 after approval from the
Secretary of Homeland Security (Department of Homeland Security,
2003). However, the limits under the SAFETY Act do not apply to harm
caused when no act of terrorism has occurred, so this provision may not
cover vaccines that might be used when an attack is only suspected or
threatened (Gottron, 2003) or vaccines administered to U.S. troops to pro-
3Liability protections related to the smallpox vaccine were included in the Homeland Se-
curity Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), passed in November 2002, and in amendments enacted in
the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-20), passed in April
2003.
4The government contractor defense is a judicially created doctrine barring claims against
government contractors who meet certain requirements. The SAFETY Act provides that this
defense is available upon approval by the Secretary of Homeland Security to those who sell
to state and local governments and the private sector as well as to the federal government.
OCR for page 81
CHALLENGES IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 81
tect against potential battlefield (rather than bioterrorist) exposure to bio-
logical agents.
Another model is the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
(P.L. 99-660), which is a federal "no-fault" system to provide compensa-
tion for injuries related to specific childhood vaccines. This approach re-
quires sufficient prior knowledge of the products and their associated
adverse effects so that a list of covered injuries can be established. As a
result, this model is not practicable for as-yet undeveloped vaccines and
drugs for which adverse event profiles have not been determined.
Another approach is contractual indemnification, which obligates the
federal government to pay a contractor's costs incurred as a result of liti-
gation. Through its prime system contract with DVC, DoD already makes
indemnification available, on request, to DVC's subcontractors as an ex-
tension of the indemnification provided to DVC. However, because com-
panies can recover litigation costs only after they are incurred, this ap-
proach can allow companies to fail before they are able to receive payment
from the government.
The committee favors an approach similar in concept to the Home-
land Security Act model for the smallpox vaccine. The government would
be the sole defendant in any suit alleging injury in connection with a des-
ignated biodefense countermeasure, but would retain the right to seek
indemnification from a manufacturer or other covered person for speci-
fied actions, such as gross negligence, willful misconduct, or criminal acts.
Experience with the swine flu program in 1976 suggests that this will pro-
vide sufficient assurance for large pharmaceutical companies and others
to participate in the development and manufacture of the needed prod-
ucts, while retaining incentives for all participants to exercise appropriate
care in the research, development, and manufacturing process. This ap-
proach will require some form of legislation. Until such legislation can be
enacted, the committee recommends that DoD and DHHS make maxi-
mum permitted use of existing legislative authority to enter into indemni-
fication agreements with persons who contract for research, development,
and manufacture of biodefense countermeasures.
7. DoD and DHHS should make maximum permissible use of statu-
tory indemnification authority under existing legislation to encour-
age entities in the private sector, including universities and other
research institutions and companies, to enter into agreements to
develop and manufacture medical countermeasures against
biowarfare agents. As soon as possible, legislation should be en-
acted creating a system comparable to that for the smallpox vaccine
under the Homeland Security Act, under which suits for personal
injuries allegedly caused by biowarfare countermeasures may be
OCR for page 82
82 GIVING FULL MEASURE TO COUNTERMEASURES
brought only against the federal government, which would retain
the right to recover damages resulting from such suits from manu-
facturers or other covered persons if their misconduct (gross negli-
gence, illegal acts, willful misconduct, or violation of government
contract obligations) was shown to be the cause of the injuries.
SUPPORTING THE REGULATORY PROCESS
FDA has statutory responsibility for ensuring the safety and efficacy
of drugs and biologics approved for human use,5 which gives the agency
a crucial role in the development and licensure of medical biodefense
products of interest to DoD. As a result, efforts to accelerate the develop-
ment of medical countermeasures for DoD have to take into account fac-
tors related to FDA. The committee focused on three issues that require
further attention: application of the new Animal Efficacy Rule, ensuring
that FDA has the resources necessary to expedite the review of product
license applications for medical countermeasures, and planning for lim-
ited or emergency use of medical countermeasures.
Using the Animal Efficacy Rule
The Animal Efficacy Rule, finalized by FDA in 2002, enables FDA to
approve new vaccines and drugs when it is not ethical or feasible to con-
duct human efficacy studies, a situation that applies to most biodefense
products. Under this new rule, evidence of efficacy can be based on data
derived from studies in more than one animal species "expected to react
with a response predictive for humans" or in a single sufficiently well-
characterized animal model (FDA, 2002b). In February 2003, FDA an-
nounced the first product approval under the Animal Efficacy Rule:
pyridostigmine bromide for pretreatment prophylaxis against exposure
to the nerve agent soman (FDA, 2003a).
A substantial amount of work must be done to validate animal mod-
els as surrogates for humans in efficacy studies of biowarfare counter-
measures. It will be necessary to establish the biologic plausibility of the
equivalence of animal and human responses to the disease agents and to
the countermeasures in question. DoD-sponsored investigators have
helped develop some of the few existing animal models of human disease
caused by biological warfare agents or of protection against those dis-
5Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act Section 505i; The Public Health Service Act, Regu-
lation of Biological Products, Section 351 Subpart 1.
OCR for page 83
CHALLENGES IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 83
eases (e.g., Geisbert et al., 2002; Ivins et al., 1996, 1998; Jahrling, 2002; Pitt
et al., 1996, 2001; Zaucha et al., 2001), but the National Institute of Allergy
and Infectious Diseases (NIAID, 2002) has identified a need for additional
work to develop animal models for almost all of the biological agents con-
sidered to pose the most serious threat for bioterrorism (referred to as
"Category A" agents).6
Although the committee believes that NIAID should be the primary
sponsor of such work, the Medical Biodefense Agency should ensure that
information on animal models developed by DoD investigators is avail-
able to researchers and the product development community, including
FDA. The Medical Biodefense Agency should also have adequate funding
to help support development of the animal models that will be necessary
to establish the efficacy of biodefense products intended to meet unique
DoD needs.
8. The Medical Biodefense Agency and the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) should cooperate in making information on animal
models relevant for the development of medical biowarfare coun-
termeasures available to qualified investigators. The DoD agency
should work with NIH and engage FDA to develop additional ani-
mal models that will be useful for specific agents or products of
particular concern to DoD. The Medical Biodefense Agency should
receive funding specifically for this task.
The Animal Efficacy Rule is new, and there is still uncertainty about
its interpretation and application. Although FDA will be the final judge of
the data needed to provide evidence of efficacy, advances are required in
the scientific field as a whole, accompanied by scientific discussion and
consensus building regarding the best approaches. FDA should receive
funding to support this additional work, which will help establish an es-
sential scientific foundation for use of the Animal Efficacy Rule.
9. FDA should work with the scientific community to enrich the
science base that the agency will have to draw on in order to apply
the Animal Efficacy Rule. FDA should receive sufficient funding to
support both intramural and extramural work on these issues.
6The CDC has established three categories of biological agents that are considered to be
bioterrorism threats (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/agentlist-category.asp). Category A
agents are those considered to pose the most serious risk to national security; these agents
are listed in Appendix A.
OCR for page 92
92 GIVING FULL MEASURE TO COUNTERMEASURES
Facilities for Research and Product Development and Testing
Specialized facilities for research, development, testing, and evalua-
tion are part of the essential infrastructure for the development of medical
biodefense countermeasures. Work with most of the Category A agents
requires facilities with high-level biosafety ratings (biosafety level [BSL] 3
or 4), putting the availability of these facilities on the critical path for coun-
termeasure development. Furthermore, the military threat posed by most
biological agents is generally considered to be from aerosol exposure. As
a result, efficacy testing for candidate countermeasures for DoD requires
facilities in which test animals can be subjected to aerosol challenge under
high-level biocontainment conditions.
At the present time, only a few BSL-3 and BSL-4 facilities are opera-
tional, including those at USAMRIID. USAMRIID and Battelle Memorial
Institute have the nation's primary facilities for aerosol challenge studies
of nonhuman primates. As a result of increases in the number of candi-
date countermeasures expected to be moving through the development
pipeline, there is a need for additional biocontainment space for labora-
tory research, for animal experiments involving aerosol exposure to
bioagents, and for holding animals for as long as several months after
exposure to assess the safety and efficacy of candidate countermeasures.
Biocontainment facilities are complex, and the cost of designing,
building, and operating them is high. NIAID will fund the construction of
several additional BSL-3 laboratories and two BSL-4 laboratory research
facilities that are expected to begin operation in the next 5 to 7 years
(NIAID press release, 2003; Parker, 2003). These include additional intra-
mural laboratories, one of which will be adjacent to USAMRIID, and ex-
tramural facilities. DHS (no date) is also planning the construction of a
major facility for biodefense research and analysis at Fort Detrick. This
facility is expected to include a biocontainment laboratory and aerosol
exposure capabilities.
The existing major facilities at USAMRIID, however, are more than 30
years old and will not be useful much longer without extensive renova-
tions. The estimated costs of replacing the USAMRIID facility to ensure
the necessary scientific and physical capacity for modern research, test-
ing, and evaluation are $1 billion over 8 years (USAMRIID, 2003). Al-
though the Secretary of Defense has been given specific authority to use
available construction funds to improve DoD laboratories that are neces-
sary to carry out the department's research and development program for
biomedical countermeasures,8 the committee saw no indication that funds
have been budgeted for the work needed at USAMRIID.
8National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, P.L. 108-136, Sec. 1601 (Novem-
ber 2003).
OCR for page 93
CHALLENGES IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 93
It also is unclear whether sufficient facilities for holding, testing, and
evaluation of animals in compliance with FDA regulations for Good Labo-
ratory Practices9 have been planned (Parker, 2003). Such facilities have to
support compliance with stricter standards for consistency than are nec-
essary during earlier stages of product research and development. They
will be needed to conduct the animal testing required by the Animal Effi-
cacy Rule. The committee is concerned that the limited availability of such
facilities already constitutes a bottleneck for the testing and evaluation
process (Linden, 2002; Parker, 2003; Peuschel, 2002) and that the backlog
will grow more severe as additional discovery efforts bear fruit.
Another facilities issue is the capacity for cGMP production of candi-
date vaccines and drugs before full-scale manufacturing begins. Clinical
testing of candidate products requires the use of material produced in
compliance with FDA regulations for cGMP,10 and cGMP production re-
quires a sophisticated facility and skilled staff. Historically, vaccine and
drug development has been the domain of industry; thus, licensed cGMP
facilities, especially for vaccine production, are rare outside the industrial
enterprise. For researchers who do not have an industry partner, lack of
access to cGMP-compliant production facilities can be a major obstacle to
clinical testing of candidate products (McCoy, 2003). Contract facilities
are reported to have waiting times of 12 to 24 months (Shepard, 2003).
This is a problem for developers of products to meet DoD needs, as well
as for academic labs pursuing other niche products.
In view of the targeted market for medical countermeasures against
biowarfare agents, industry may have limited incentives to make cGMP
facilities available to manufacture the small amounts of material needed
for early clinical testing. Increased access to facilities designed to produce
materials for at least Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials would aid the develop-
ment of candidate vaccines and drugs. Ideally, such facilities should have
the flexibility to allow dedicated use of space for a variety of parallel prod-
ucts. For work on biodefense countermeasures, space meeting BSL-3 stan-
dards is also needed. Within DoD, the Walter Reed Army Institute of Re-
search opened a facility in 1999 for production of cGMP-grade vaccines,
with 25,000 square feet of space and five clean rooms (DoD, no date b).
This facility has limited capacity compared with one opened in July 2003
by St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, which has a 64,000 square foot
facility with 16 clean rooms (Personal communication, E. Tuomanen, St.
Jude Children's Research Hospital, September 9, 2003).
9Good Laboratory Practice for Nonclinical Laboratory Studies (21 C.F.R. Pt. 58 [2003]).
10Current Good Manufacturing Practice in Manufacturing, Processing, Packing, or Hold-
ing of Drugs; General (21 C.F.R. Part 210 [2003]) and Current Good Manufacturing Practices
for Finished Pharmaceuticals (21 C.F.R. Part 211 [2003]).
OCR for page 94
94 GIVING FULL MEASURE TO COUNTERMEASURES
Because several different government agencies have research inter-
ests related to the development of biodefense products, interagency coor-
dination is essential. A planning and assessment process is needed so that
comprehensive estimates can be developed for all government agencies
of biodefense requirements for laboratory space and for animal testing
and holding space at BSL-3 and BSL-4 levels. This planning process should
also take into account the anticipated demands of the academic commu-
nity and industry. A high-level process is needed to prioritize the use of
the limited space available and to continue planning for any additional
space needs.
12. The Medical Biodefense Agency should participate in interde-
partmental efforts to make a formal assessment of the need for fa-
cilities for animal testing and holding and for GMP-compliant
manufacturing of material for clinical testing that will arise from
research efforts to develop medical countermeasures to biowarfare
or bioterrorism agents that are under way, planned, or likely.
13. The Medical Biodefense Agency should promote the develop-
ment, and participate in a system for prioritizing the use, of special-
ized government-owned testing facilities that are essential for re-
search and development of medical biodefense countermeasures.
14. DoD should provide funding to carry out the renovations neces-
sary to ensure that USAMRIID can continue operation of fully func-
tional BSL-3 and BSL-4 facilities for laboratory and animal research.
ENSURING THE AVAILABILITY OF A
WELL-TRAINED WORKFORCE
A key to success in the research and development efforts on medical
countermeasures against biowarfare agents is a well-trained and experi-
enced workforce. People with relevant scientific, regulatory, and acquisi-
tion expertise are all integral to these efforts. At present, however, the
supply of scientific and technical personnel is limited not only within
DoD, but in the larger community of biowarfare and bioterrorism coun-
termeasures development (IOM, 2002; NIAID, 2002; Partnership for Pub-
lic Service, 2003; Top et al., 2000).
A recent report expressed concern about the small and shrinking fed-
eral workforce with medical and biological expertise relevant to respond-
ing to a biological attack, noting that many federal employees with this
expertise are nearing retirement age and that limitations on pay, poor hir-
ing procedures, and unattractive work settings make recruitment of re-
OCR for page 95
CHALLENGES IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 95
placements very difficult (Partnership for Public Service, 2003). Some of
these problems have been reported as particularly acute within DoD (De-
fense Science Board, 1998, 2000, 2002) and were discussed with the com-
mittee during its information-gathering meetings.11 Reports have also
noted the limited expertise in biological sciences within DoD (Danzig and
Berkowsky, 1997; NRC, 2001) and the apparent impact of the elimination
of the military draft in the early 1970s on the numbers of researchers with
medical and doctoral degrees coming through the military medical re-
search laboratories (IOM, 2002; Top et al., 2000).
The lack of sufficient personnel with necessary expertise in infectious
diseases, microbiology, immunology, primate medicine, drug develop-
ment and vaccinology, and vaccine manufacturing is a limiting factor in
the rate at which biomedical countermeasures can be developed. The com-
mittee notes in particular the need for people with expertise in aerobiol-
ogy, in the development of animal models of human disease caused by
biological warfare agents, and in the advanced development and manu-
facture of medical products, particularly vaccines. There is also a shortage
of veterinarians with the necessary expertise in laboratory animal medi-
cine, management, and pathology, including those with special training
in the care and use of nonhuman primates (NRC, 2004).
In addition to personnel with these scientific and technical skills, DoD
and other organizations involved in bringing medical products to licen-
sure have a need for people who have a thorough understanding of the
FDA regulatory process and, if possible, experience at FDA or in working
with FDA to bring a product to licensure. Such regulatory expertise can
inform the advanced development effort by helping to provide an under-
standing of the varying areas of flexibility and constraint in the regula-
tions and of FDA's needs for data and documentation. Some have pointed
specifically to DoD's need to improve its regulatory expertise in support
of the medical biodefense program (Rettig and Brower, 2003). Clearly,
FDA requires a highly trained staff as well, with incentives and support to
maintain a rapid pace of efficient and thorough reviews.
Researchers and product developers within DoD also need an under-
standing of the defense acquisition system, the management process by
which DoD oversees the development and production of products and
technologies to meet defined needs. Famous for its complexity, the DoD
acquisition system has undergone recent changes in policy with a goal of
fostering efficiency, creativity, flexibility, and innovation (DoD, 2003a, b,
c). Understanding how to work within this system requires training and
11
See Appendix B for agendas for the committee's information-gathering meetings. Per-
sonnel issues were discussed at the January 2003 meeting.
OCR for page 96
96 GIVING FULL MEASURE TO COUNTERMEASURES
experience. Such know-how is crucial for those who are managing devel-
opment of medical countermeasures against biowarfare agents or natu-
rally occurring infectious diseases. They must work not only within the
law and regulations enforced by FDA, but also within DoD's rules for
entering and progressing through its acquisition system, with milestones
and evaluations to justify funding for continued development. Even
though the committee advocates relying on the FDA regulatory process
as the basis for technical judgments of progress in the development and
performance of medical biodefense countermeasures, links with the DoD
acquisition system must be maintained.
Several approaches are needed to address the serious workforce short-
age in the biodefense area. The pipeline of young scientists in training to
carry out the work of basic research and early development will be en-
hanced to some degree by recent research and training grants available
through the NIAID biodefense research program (NIAID, 2003). How-
ever, DoD has certain unique resources in the form of scientists and tech-
nicians with aerobiology expertise and facilities suitable for aerosol expo-
sures of laboratory animals. These unique resources should be used in
training additional aerobiology investigators and technicians. DoD exper-
tise could also contribute to the development of a curriculum for such
training.
Further, the NIAID training program is unlikely to adequately ad-
dress the critical need for people with experience in advanced develop-
ment and manufacture of vaccines and drugs. Most of the expertise in
vaccine development and manufacturing resides within the commercial
sector, primarily in the four large vaccine-producing companies. The com-
mittee sees the need for additional training programs that involve the
pharmaceutical industry as a resource and partner. A possible model for
such a program exists in the National Institute of General Medical Sci-
ences Biotechnology Training Program in which predoctoral trainees are
expected to carry out an industrial internship (NIGMS, 2003).
15. The Medical Biodefense Agency should define the capabilities
needed for its medical countermeasures workforce, collaborate with
NIAID and industry to develop a training curriculum, and support
training programs in the areas of special expertise needed for re-
search and development of medical countermeasures. The Medical
Biodefense Agency could contribute unique DoD resources in ar-
eas of aerobiology and the development of animal models of hu-
man diseases caused by biological warfare agents.
OCR for page 97
CHALLENGES IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 97
In addition to efforts to augment the supply of trained scientists, steps
are needed to improve DoD's ability to hire and retain such scientists. The
Medical Biodefense Agency will need the authority to offer competitive
salaries and other incentives.
The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2004 (P.L. 108-136)
includes provisions that may meet some of these needs. Specifically, DoD
received authority to enter into up to 30 personal services contracts, with
compensation at rates above those for department employees, to carry
out research and development activities for biomedical countermeasures.
This authority can be used when the services to be provided are deter-
mined to be "urgent or unique" and if it is not practical to obtain those
services in other ways. In addition, to accelerate research and develop-
ment of biomedical countermeasures, the Secretary of Defense may hire
scientific and technical personnel using special hiring authorities that in-
clude up to 5 years of supplemental payments in addition to salary. Over-
all, the department can hire up to 2,500 experts under such terms.
Use of mechanisms such as the Intergovernmental Personnel Act (5
U.S.C. §§ 33713375; 5 C.F.R. Part 334) should also be encouraged to en-
able the Medical Biodefense Agency to draw on expertise in other agen-
cies and in academia and other not-for-profit organizations through tem-
porary appointments. The agency should also explore mechanisms that
could provide increased access to the expertise of industry employees.
16. DoD should use its authority under the National Defense Au-
thorization Act for FY 2004 (P.L. 108-136) to offer more competitive
salaries to technical experts to bring necessary expertise in biotech-
nology and pharmaceutical research and development to the Medi-
cal Biodefense Agency. Budgeting for the Medical Biodefense
Agency should reflect the need to use such provisions to recruit
experienced scientific and technical personnel.
REFERENCES
Albert V. 2003. Rapid development by Human Genome Sciences of a medical countermea-
sure to protect against anthrax. Presentation to the Institute of Medicine and National
Research Council Committee on Accelerating the Research, Development, and Acqui-
sition of Medical Countermeasures Against Biological Warfare Agents, Meeting IV.
Washington, DC.
Aventis Pasteur. 2002. An Effective Action Plan for Anti Bioterrorism Vaccine Acquisition
and Procurement. Position paper. Swiftwater, PA: Aventis Pasteur Inc.
Barbaro M. 2003. Biodefense plan greeted with caution. Washington Post (May 2), p. E1.
Bennett BT, Abee CR, Henrickson R (eds). 1995. Nonhuman Primates in Biomedical Research.
Biology and Management. San Diego: Academic Press.
Black H. 2003. Monkey trouble. The Scientist (July 28). [Online]. Available: http://www.
biomedcentral.com/news/20030728/02 [accessed July 28, 2003].
OCR for page 98
98 GIVING FULL MEASURE TO COUNTERMEASURES
Carney JM. 2003. Accelerating research and development for biowarfare therapeutics. Pre-
sentation to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council Committee on
Accelerating the Research, Development, and Acquisition of Medical Countermeasures
Against Biological Warfare Agents, Meeting II. Washington, DC.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2002. Possession, use, and transfer of
select agents and toxins. Interim final rule. Federal Register 67(240):7688676905.
Danzig R, Berkowsky PB. 1997. Why should we be concerned about biological warfare?
JAMA 278(5):431432.
Defense Science Board. 1998. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Defense Science
and Technology Base for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, Of-
fice of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
Defense Science Board. 2000. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on the Technological
Capabilities of Non-DoD Providers. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, Office of
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology.
Defense Science Board. 2002. 2001 Summer Study on Defense Science and Technology. Washing-
ton, DC: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics.
DeMarcus T. 2003. Nonhuman primate importation and quarantine, United States, FY2002.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (slide presentation submitted to commit-
tee).
Department of Homeland Security. No date. Department of Homeland Security Budget in
Brief. [Online]. Available: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FY_2004_
BUDGET_IN_BRIEF.pdf [accessed August 26, 2003].
Department of Homeland Security. 2003. Regulations implementing the Support Anti-Ter-
rorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 (the SAFETY Act). Proposed
rule. Federal Register 68(133):4142041432.
DoD (Department of Defense). No date a. "Other Transaction." [Online]. Available: http://
alpha.lmi.org/dodgars/other_transactions/other_transactions.htm [accessed May 20,
2003].
DoD. No date b. Department of Defense In-House RDT&E Activities: FY2000 Management
Analysis Report. [Online]. Available: http://www.scitechweb.com/inhousereport/
index1.html [accessed September 9, 2003].
DoD. 1993. Department of Defense Directive: DoD Imminization Program for Biological Warfare
Defense. Number 6205.3. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
DoD. 2000. Department of Defense Directive: Use of Investigational New Drugs for Force Health
Protection. Number 6200.2. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
DoD. 2001. "Other Transactions" (OT) Guide for Prototype Projects. Washington, DC: Un-
der Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dp/dsps/ot/dspsot.htm [accessed September 2, 2003].
DoD. 2003a. Department of Defense Directive: The Defense Acquisition System. Number 5000.1.
Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
DoD. 2003b. Department of Defense Instruction: Operation of the Defense Acquisition System.
Number 5000.2. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
DoD. 2003c. DoD New Acquisition Policies Instituted. News release, May 14. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/b05142003_bt327-03.html [accessed
May 22, 2003].
FDA (Food and Drug Administration). 1990. Informed consent for human drugs and
biologics; determination that informed consent is not feasible. Interim rule. Federal Reg-
ister 55:52814.
OCR for page 99
CHALLENGES IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 99
FDA. 1998. Guidance for Industry: Fast Track Drug Development Programs--Designation,
Development, and Application Review. U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-
vices, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research and
Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. [Online]. Available: http://www.fda.
gov/cder/guidance/2112fnl.pdf [accessed August 11, 2003].
FDA. 2000. Anti-infective Drugs Advisory Committee (transcript of July 28 meeting).
[Online]. Available: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/00/transcripts/3632t1a.
pdf [accessed August 27, 2003].
FDA. 2001. Prescription drug products; doxycycline and penicillin G procaine administra-
tion for inhalational anthrax (post-exposure). Notice. Federal Register 66(213):55679
55682.
FDA. 2002a. Guidance for Industry: Inhalational Anthrax (Post-exposure)--Developing
Antimicrobial Drugs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug
Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. [Online]. Available: http://
www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/4848dft.PDF [accessed August 11, 2003].
FDA. 2002b. New drug and biological drug products: Evidence needed to demonstrate ef-
fectiveness of new drugs when human efficacy studies are not ethical or feasible. Final
rule. 21 C.F.R. Parts 314 and 601. Federal Register 67(105):3798837998.
FDA. 2003a. FDA Approves Pyridostigmine Bromide as Pretreatment Against Nerve Gas.
Press release, February 5. [Online]. Available: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/
NEWS/2003/NEW00870.html [accessed February 6, 2003].
FDA. 2003b. First Nasal Mist Flu Vaccine Approved. Press release, June 17. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00913.html [accessed Sep-
tember 4, 2003].
FDA. 2003c. Pyridostigmine bromide package insert. [Online]. Available: http://www.fda.
gov/cder/foi/label/2003/020414lbl.pdf [accessed September 24, 2003].
GAO (General Accounting Office). 2002. Defense Acquisitions: DOD Has Implemented Section
845 Recommendations but Reporting Can Be Enhanced. GAO-03-150. Washington, DC: U.S.
General Accounting Office.
Geisbert TW, Pushko P, Anderson K, Smith J, Davis KJ, Jahrling PB. 2002. Evaluation in
nonhuman primates of vaccines against Ebola virus. Emerging Infectious Diseases
8(5):503507.
Gillis J. 2003. Md. firm plans human tests of anthrax antidote. Washington Post (March 18), p.
A22.
Gottron F. 2003. Project BioShield. CRS Report for Congress, RS21507. Updated August 25.
Washington, DC: Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service.
Hearn JP. 2003. Primate priorities--an international perspective. Pp. 39 in International Per-
spectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources. Washington, DC: National Acad-
emies Press.
Henchal EA. 2003. Medical product development at USAMRIID. Presentation to the Insti-
tute of Medicine and National Research Council Committee on Accelerating the Re-
search, Development, and Acquisition of Medical Countermeasures Against Biological
Warfare Agents, March 19. Fort Detrick, MD.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2002. Protecting Our Forces: Improving Vaccine Acquisition and
Availability in the U.S. Military. Lemon SM, Thaul S, Fisseha S, O'Maonaigh HC, eds.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Ivins BE, Fellows PF, Pitt MLM, Estep JE, Welkos SL, Worsham PL, Friedlander AM. 1996.
Efficacy of a standard human anthrax vaccine against Bacillus anthracis aerosol spore
challenge in rhesus monkeys. Salisbury Medical Bulletin 87(Suppl):125126.
OCR for page 100
100 GIVING FULL MEASURE TO COUNTERMEASURES
Ivins BE, Pitt ML, Fellows PF, Farchaus JW, Benner GE, Waag DM, Little SF, Anderson GW
Jr., Gibbs PH, Friedlander AM. 1998. Comparative efficacy of experimental anthrax
vaccine candidates against inhalation anthrax in rhesus macaques. Vaccine 16(11
12):11411148.
Jahrling PB. 2002. Medical countermeasures against the re-emergence of smallpox virus. Pp.
5053 in Biological Threats and Terrorism: Assessing the Science and Response Capabilities,
SL Knobler, AAF Mahmoud, and LA Pray, eds. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Linden C. 2002. Sponsor presentation on the study charge. Presentation to the Institute of
Medicine and National Research Council Committee on Accelerating the Research,
Development, and Acquisition of Medical Countermeasures Against Biological War-
fare Agents, Meeting I. Washington, DC.
Linden C. 2003. Medical countermeasures for biological warfare agents research carried out
at/through U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command. Presentation to the
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council Committee on Accelerating the
Research, Development, and Acquisition of Medical Countermeasures Against Biologi-
cal Warfare Agents, Meeting II. Washington, DC.
Ludlam C. 2003. Research, development, and procurement of countermeasures for bioterror
attacks. Presentation to the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council Com-
mittee on Accelerating the Research, Development, and Acquisition of Medical Coun-
termeasures Against Biological Warfare Agents, Meeting V. Washington, DC.
McCoy M. 2003. Serving emerging pharma. Chemical & Engineering News 81(21):2133.
NIAID (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases). 2002. NIAID Biodefense Re-
search Agenda for CDC Category A Agents. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.
[Online]. Available: http://www.niaid.nih.gov/biodefense/research/biotresearch
agenda.pdf [accessed July 1, 2002].
NIAID. 2003. Biodefense Research Training and Career Development Opportunities. Notice:
NOT-AI-03-047. Bethesda, MD.
NIAID and USAMRIID (U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases). 2002.
Interagency agreement between the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Dis-
eases and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.
NIGMS (National Institute of General Medical Sciences). 2003. Biotechnology Predoctoral
Training Program. [Online]. Available: http://www.nigms.nih.gov/funding/
trngmech.html [accessed July 30, 2003].
NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Opportunities in Biotechnology for Future Army Appli-
cations. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 2003. International Perspectives: The Future of Nonhuman Primate Resources, Proceedings of
the Workshop held April 17-19, 2002. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2004. National Need and Priorities for Veterinarians in Biomedical Research. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
Parker G. 2003. Biocontainment facilities needed to support medical biological defense re-
search, development, test, and evaluation. Presentation to the Institute of Medicine and
National Research Council Committee on Accelerating the Research, Development, and
Acquisition of Medical Countermeasures Against Biological Warfare Agents, Meeting
IV. Washington, DC.
Partnership for Public Service. 2003. Homeland Insecurity: Building the Expertise to Defend
America from Bioterrorism. Washington, DC: Partnership for Public Service. [Online].
Available: http://www.ourpublicservice.org/publications3735/publications_show.
htm?doc_id=181630 [accessed July 8, 2003].
Peuschel M. 2002. Army, NIH team up to counter bioterror. U.S. Medicine (November).
[Online]. Available: http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=533&
issueID=44 [accessed August 16, 2003].
OCR for page 101
CHALLENGES IN THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 101
Pitt MLM, Ivins BE, Estep JE, Farchaus J, Friedlander AM. 1996. Comparison of the efficacy
of purified protective antigen and MDPH to protect non-human primates from inhala-
tion anthrax. Salisbury Medical Bulletin 87(Suppl):130.
Pitt ML, Little SF, Ivins BE, Fellows P, Barth J, Hewetson J, Gibbs P, Dertzbaugh M, Fried-
lander AM. 2001. In vitro correlate of immunity in a rabbit model of inhalational an-
thrax. Vaccine 19(32):47684773.
Read L. 2003. Furthering public health security: Project Bioshield. Testimony before the Sub-
committee on Health of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Sub-
committee on Emergency Preparedness and Response of the House Committee on
Homeland Security, March 27. [Online]. Available: http://energycommerce.house.
gov/108/Hearings/03272003hearing844/Read1393print.htm [accessed October 15,
2003].
Research Resources Information Center. No date. Rhesus Monkey Demands in Biomedical
Research. A Workshop Report. Based on a workshop held April 1920, 2002. Bethesda,
MD.
Rettig R. 1999. Military Use of Drugs Not Yet Approved by the FDA for CW/BW Defense: Lessons
from the Gulf War. MR-1019/9-OSD. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1018.9/ [accessed February 10,
2003].
Rettig R, Brower J. 2003. The Acquisition of Drugs and Biologics for Chemical and Biological War-
fare Defense: Department of Defense Interactions with the Food and Drug Administration.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute. [Online]. Available: http://www.rand.org/
publications/MR/MR1659/ [accessed October 20, 2003].
Ryan U. 2003. Project BioShield Act of 2003. Testimony before the House Government Re-
form Committee, April 4. Washington, DC.
Shepard S. 2003. A new level of research. Memphis Business Journal (July 14). [Online]. Avail-
able: http://memphis.bizjournals.com/memphis/stories/2003/07/14/focus1.html
[accessed July 18, 2003].
Shortage of monkeys hampering research. 2003. Seattle Times (August 10), p. A8.
Sullivan NJ, Geisbert TW, Beisbert JB, Xu L, Yang Z, Roederer M, Koup RA, Jahrling PB,
Nabel GJ. 2003. Accelerated vaccination for Ebola virus haemorrhagic fever in non-
human primates. Nature 424:681684.
Tether T. 2002. Statement submitted to the Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement
Policy, Committee on Government Reform, United States House of Representatives,
May 10. Washington, DC [Online]. Available: http://reform.house.gov/tapps/hear-
ings/5-10-02/DARPAtestimonyfinal.htm [accessed May 19, 2003].
Top FH Jr., Dingerdissen JJ, Habig WH, Quinnan GV Jr., Wells RL. 2000. DoD Acquisition of
Vaccine Production: Report to the Deputy Secretary of Defense by the Independent
Panel of Experts. In DoD. 2001. Report on Biological Warfare Defense Vaccine Research and
Development Programs. Washington, DC: Department of Defense. [Online]. Available:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/cp/bwdvrdp-july01.pdf [accessed February 19, 2004].
USAMRIID (U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases). 2003. An Update
Report to the Congress Concerning the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infec-
tious Diseases (USAMRIID) Feasibility Study and Biodefense Campus at Fort Detrick,
Maryland. Submitted in Compliance with House Report 107-350. September. Fort
Detrick, MD: U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command.
Zaucha GM, Jahrling PB, Geisbert TW, Swearengen JR, Hensley L. 2001. The pathology of
experimental aerosolized monkeypox virus infection in cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca
fascicularis). Laboratory Investigation 81(12):15811600.
OCR for page 102
Representative terms from entire chapter:
medical biodefense
