Test and Evaluation of Biological Standoff Detection Systems

ABBREVIATED VERSION

Committee on Test and Evaluation of Biological Standoff Detection Systems

Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology

Board on Life Sciences

Division on Earth and Life Studies

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, DC
www.nap.edu



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 R1
Test and Evaluation of Biological Standoff Detection Systems ABBREVIATED VERSION Committee on Test and Evaluation of Biological Standoff Detection Systems Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology Board on Life Sciences Division on Earth and Life Studies THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, DC www.nap.edu

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by the U.S. Army under grant contract W911NF-06-C-0148. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-11443-1 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-11443-8 Additional copies of this report are available from: The National Academies Press 500 Fifth Street, NW Box 285 Washington, DC 20055 (800) 624-6242 (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area) http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON TEST AND EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL STANDOFF DETECTION SYSTEMS MICHAEL J. GOLDBLATT (COCHAIR), Functional Genetics, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD ANANTHA KRISHNAN (COCHAIR), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA NANCY CONNELL, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ PHILIP E. COYLE III, Science Strategies, Sacramento, CA ERIC EISENSTADT, J. Craig Venter Institute, Rockville, MD ERIC E. GARD, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA MICHAEL J. HOPMEIER, Unconventional Concepts, Inc., Mary Esther, FL MURRAY V. JOHNSTON, University of Delaware, Newark, DE FRANCES LIGLER, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC SHANE D. MAYOR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO TIMOTHY F. MOSHIER, Syracuse Research Corporation, Syracuse, NY C. SHANE REESE, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT UPENDRA N. SINGH, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Hampton, VA NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF KERRY A. BRENNER, Senior Program Officer, BLS NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Senior Editor, DELS KELA L. MASTERS, Senior Program Assistant, BCST ERICKA M. MCGOWAN, Associate Program Officer, BCST SYBIL A. PAIGE, Administrative Coordinator, BCST JESSICA L. PULLEN, Research Assistant, BCST FEDERICO M. SAN MARTINI, Study Director, Program Officer, BCST DOROTHY ZOLANDZ, Director, BCST v

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON CHEMICAL SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY F. FLEMING CRIM (COCHAIR), University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI ELSA REICHMANIS (COCHAIR), Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ PAUL T. ANASTAS, Yale University, New Haven, CT GARY S. CALABRESE, Rohm & Haas Company, W. Philadelphia, PA JEAN DE GRAEVE, Université de Liège, Belgium PABLO G. DEBENEDETTI, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ MILES P. DRAKE, Weyerhaeuser Company, Allentown, PA GEORGE W. FLYNN, Columbia University, New York, NY MAURICIO FUTRAN, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, New Brunswick, NJ PAULA T. HAMMOND, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA ROBERT HWANG, Sandia National Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM JAY V. IHLENFELD, 3M Research & Development, St. Paul, MN JAMES L. KINSEY , Rice University, Houston, TX MARTHA A. KREBS, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA CHARLES T. KRESGE, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI SCOTT J. MILLER, Yale University, New Haven, CT GERALD V. POJE, Private Consultant, Vienna, VA DONALD PROSNITZ, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA MATTHEW V. TIRRELL, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF ALBERT ESHTEYN, Christine Mirzayan Fellow (through March 16, 2007) KATHRYN HUGHES, Associate Program Officer TINA M. MASCIANGIOLI, Senior Program Officer KELA L. MASTERS, Senior Program Assistant ERICKA M. MCGOWAN, Associate Program Officer SYBIL A. PAIGE, Administrative Coordinator JESSICA L. PULLEN, Research Assistant FEDERICO M. SAN MARTINI, Program Officer DOROTHY ZOLANDZ, Director vi

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON LIFE SCIENCES KEITH YAMAMOTO (Chair), University of California, San Francisco ANN M. ARVIN, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA RUTH BERKELMAN, Emory University, Atlanta, GA DEBORAH BLUM, University of Wisconsin, Madison VICKI L. CHANDLER, University of Arizona, Tucson JEFFREY L. DANGL, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill PAUL R. EHRLICH, Stanford University, Stanford, CA MARK D. FITZSIMMONS, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Chicago, IL JO HANDELSMAN, University of Wisconsin, Madison KENNETH H. KELLER, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis JOHNATHAN D. MORENO, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia RANDALL MURCH, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Alexandria MURIEL E. POSTON, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY JAMES REICHMAN, University of California, Santa Barbara BRUCE W. STILLMAN, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY MARC T. TESSIER-LAVIGNE, Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, CA JAMES TIEDJE, Michigan State University, East Lansing CYNTHIA WOLBERGER, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD TERRY L. YATES, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL STAFF FRANCES E. SHARPLES, Director KERRY A. BRENNER, Senior Program Officer ANN H. REID, Senior Program Officer MARILEE K. SHELTON-DAVENPORT, Senior Program Officer ROBERT T. YUAN, Senior Program Officer ADAM P. FAGEN, Program Officer ANNA FARRAR, Financial Associate MERCURY FOX, Program Assistant REBECCA L. WALTER, Program Assistant vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Preface The office of the Product Director for Test Equipment, Strategy, and Support (PD TESS) of the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense in the Department of Defense (DOD) is responsible for ensuring that sufficient infrastructure exists for the effective and timely testing and evaluation of chemical and biological defense equipment. That responsibility requires technical knowledge, capital, and physical resources. To support its mission, PD TESS asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to assess current and future needs for testing and evaluating biological standoff detection systems, to assess current test and evaluation (T&E) capabilities (in scientific and technical knowledge and existing or near-term facilities), and to provide guidance on how to meet the future needs of this T&E mission.1 NAS convened a committee of experts in a wide array of fields related to chemical and biological defense, remote detection, and T&E to evaluate the requirements for and feasibility of whole-system testing of biological standoff detection systems.2 In particular, the committee was asked to: • Review the scope, adequacy, and limitations of current and potential near-future biological standoff detection system testing protocols and methods. • Identify test protocols and methods that should be adopted to ensure that current and future biological standoff detection systems will meet operational requirements and state why the identified test protocols and methods were chosen. • Consider the testing of live or active biological warfare agents (BWAs), killed or inactivated BWAs, and simulants and agent-like organisms (ALOs).3 • Discuss the knowledge and confidence that can be gained with each level of testing and the shortfalls and risks associated with each level. • For each of the three options—active BWA testing, inactivated BWA testing, and ALO testing—comment on the relative scientific and technological risks and discuss the relative cost-benefit and risk-benefit considerations, including regulatory issues that would affect each level of testing. 1 The full Statement of Task can be found in Appendix A. 2 Committee biographies can be found in Appendix B. 3 Live and active BWAs are sometimes used interchangeably. Live refers to the viable form of the organism, meaning it can reproduce; active refers only to toxins, which are not organisms. Therefore, active BWA refers only to toxins and live BWA refers to all other classes of BWAs. ix

OCR for page R1
In addition to the Statement of Task, PD TESS asked the committee the following questions (Myers 2007): • Is testing with live or active BWAs necessary for adequate testing and evaluation of the performance of biological standoff detection systems? • If testing of live or active BWAs is necessary, is it feasible? If so, what technologies and concepts should be pursued? • If testing of live or active BWAs is unnecessary or infeasible, what level of testing is required? Those questions and the Statement of Task helped the committee focus its deliberations. Efforts were made to estimate costs associated with the test materials. Despite the committee’s best efforts, these estimates had substantial uncertainties and were not considered reliable. Furthermore, the current state of knowledge constrained the committee’s ability to quantify the risks associated with the test materials. Specifically, fundamental questions about certain effects on the target signal need to be answered before there can be a quantitative discussion of how well simulants correlate with ALOs and BWAs. Therefore, the committee has provided only its qualitative judgment of the risks and costs associated with the test materials. At the present time, lidar-based standoff detection technology is being explored for the Joint Biological Standoff Detection System. Although the major development emphasis is on lidar technology, considerable discussion of alternative methods occurred during the committee’s review. The committee believes that a T&E strategy needs to be developed that will permit a wide array of technologies that may be eligible for T&E in the future to be appropriately compared with each other and tested at different levels. The committee also approached the utility of and opportunities for modeling and simulation (M&S). Although current efforts in T&E are predominantly empirical, a number of M&S approaches were discussed. The committee considered research efforts that involved both a greater reliance on understanding and predictions of the characteristics of a BWA plume and hardware-in-the-loop simulation. Finally, the committee discussed issues of operational versus developmental testing and the effect that T&E would have on the future of biological standoff detection. In addition to requirements for key technical performance data, it is important to understand the impact of effective detection on military operations. It is critical to ensure that detection systems will both meet technical performance specifications and support troops in the field by increasing their probabilities of survival and making missions easier. The difference between operational and developmental testing and the military concept of operations were both highlighted. The sensitive nature of much of the information concerning biological standoff detection presented a challenge in the writing of the committee’s report. The committee’s report has been determined to contain information exempt from mandatory disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b). Section 15 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act provides that the National Academies shall make its final report available to the public unless the National Academies determines that the report would disclose matters described in one or more of the exemption provisions under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In such case, the National Academies “shall make public an abbreviated version of the report that does not disclose those matters.” This unrestricted, abbreviated version of the committee’s report was written to fulfill the National Academies’ statutory obligation. This abbreviated version represents in so far as possible the committee’s x

OCR for page R1
findings, recommendations, and other substantive material without disclosing materials described in title 5 U.S.C. section 552(b). xi

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making the published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets institutional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following people for their review of this report: Ed Eloranta, University of Wisconsin, Madison Ted Hadfield, Midwest Research Institute Bernadette Johnson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory Sallie Keller-McNulty, Rice University D. Warner North, Northworks, Inc. Donald Prosnitz, RAND Corporation Lynn Russell, University of California, San Diego Albert Sciarretta, CNS Technologies, Inc. Shiv Sharma, University of Hawaii Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Dr. Royce Murray, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. xiii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................................1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROACH......................................................................................................................2 TEST AND EVALUATION OF BIOLOGICAL STANDOFF DETECTION SYSTEMS...............................................................3 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................................4 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 APPENDIXES A STATEMENT OF TASK .......................................................................................................................... 13 B BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS ......................................................... 15 C GLOSSARY................................................................................................................................................ 21 D SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS ......................................................................................... 23 ROLE OF TEST AND EVALUATION IN DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION........... 25 E xv

OCR for page R1