. "Letter Report." Review of Research Proposals for Cooperation with Former Soviet Biological Weapons Personnel and Institutes: Letter Report from December 2, 2005 Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Review of Research Proposals for Cooperation with Former Soviet Biological Weapons Personnel and Institutes: Letter Report from December 2, 2005 Review
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine
John Kingman Drive, MSC 6201
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201
Dear Dr. Braunstein:
On behalf of the National Research Council’s Committee on the Review of Research Proposals for Cooperation with Former Soviet Biological Weapons Personnel and Institutes, I am pleased to transmit the committee’s ratings of proposals considered at our meeting of December 2, 2005. This review is in accordance with Contract No. DTRA01-02-D-003, Task Order #3, between the National Academies and the U.S. Department of Defense.
At the meeting, the committee reviewed the following research proposals (listed in alphabetical order):
AJ-1, Biological Weapons Proliferation Program in Azerbaijan
KZ-16, Research on a New Highly Immunogenic Strain from Francisella tularensis, subspecies mediaasiatica, a Candidate for Human Vaccine (revision of proposal previously considered by the committee at its meeting of June 27, 2005)
Each proposal was rated on the following five evaluation criteria:
Scientific importance of the topic;
Quality and capacity of the principal investigator, research team, and facilities;
Provision for strong U.S. collaborators;
Engagement of former Soviet biological weapon expertise and promotion of transparency; and
Sustainability of the research following project completion.
Attachment 1 contains the committee’s composite ratings for each proposal, based on examination of the proposal by all committee members, previous site visits by committee members to the institutes or laboratories in question, and thorough discussion at the meeting. A detailed description of the proposal review process is provided in Attachment 2.