Critics Decry Spending on Anthrax Vaccine
Global Security Newswire
Critics of the more than $1 billion in federal spending to develop and stockpile anthrax vaccines said the United States would be better off preparing for a biological attack that could involve other agents, the Hartford Courant reported yesterday (see GSN, April 7).
These critics have argued that terrorist have not shown any capability to execute a large-scale anthrax attack and that antibiotics could be used to treat victims of such in incident. They have said politics is driving the spending on anthrax.
Officials are concerned that terrorists could disperse anthrax spores in aerosol form over an urban center, putting the population at risk for inhalation anthrax. There are a half-dozen agents that deserve particular preparedness attention, including anthrax and smallpox, said David Ropeik, risk communication director at Harvard University's Center for Risk Analysis.
There was $418 million in biodefense spending in fiscal 2001. This rose to $3.7 billion in 2002, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and subsequent anthrax mailings, and has increased annually since.
The 2004 Project Bioshield legislation authorized spending of $5.6 billion in 10 years for bioterrorism countermeasures. Of this amount, $1.4 million is designated for anthrax vaccines.
The military for years has considered anthrax the greatest biological threat.
"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff considers anthrax to be the No. 1 biological threat agent," said Defense Department spokeswoman Barbara Goodno. "Other government agencies and civilian authorities agree. The lethal anthrax attacks of fall 2001, including a death in Connecticut, show how easy it is to disperse anthrax spores with deadly effect."
Some weapons experts have said the anthrax threat has been overstated and that there is no evidence that terrorist groups have been able to develop viable anthrax spores.
Anthrax spores can be delivered through the air and remain virulent longer than other agents. However, scientists have said that it would be as easy to distribute pathogens such as ricin and botulinum.
They have also said that anthrax is difficult to make and use and that winds can affect how the agent is spread.
The government needs to decide which agents to target and which are being promoted for "a political reason," said Victor Sidel, co-author of "Terrorism and Public Health: A Balanced Approach to Strengthening Systems and Protecting People."
Retired Air Force Col. John Richardson agreed.
"Politicians only want to be able to say - in the aftermath of a terrorist event -that, 'We did all we could do,'" he said. "Defending against hypothetical bioterrorism deaths will bring in votes and contributions. The spending is driven by political expediency, not the threat."
Money would be better spent on after-attack treatment, said Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center.
"Despite the fear and hysteria that has been created by physician health officials inside and outside of the Pentagon, there has not been one shred of evidence presented to the American people that biological weapons, including viable weaponized anthrax supplies, exist and are ready to be unleashed on the U.S.," she said.
Anthrax can be treated following an attack with antibiotics. The Health and Human Services Department said that response to an attack would be treatment with an existing vaccine along with antibiotics. There are enough antibiotics to treat 40 million people, according to the department.
The Food and Drug Administration said last year that these treatment methods are safe and effective, but added "long-term use of such therapies in individuals at high risk for anthrax disease, potentially for a period of years, has not been studied" (Thomas Williams, Hartford Courant, April 10).
Critics of the more than $1 billion in federal spending to develop and stockpile anthrax vaccines said the United States would be better off preparing for a biological attack that could involve other agents, the Hartford Courant reported yesterday (see GSN, April 7).
These critics have argued that terrorist have not shown any capability to execute a large-scale anthrax attack and that antibiotics could be used to treat victims of such in incident. They have said politics is driving the spending on anthrax.
Officials are concerned that terrorists could disperse anthrax spores in aerosol form over an urban center, putting the population at risk for inhalation anthrax. There are a half-dozen agents that deserve particular preparedness attention, including anthrax and smallpox, said David Ropeik, risk communication director at Harvard University's Center for Risk Analysis.
There was $418 million in biodefense spending in fiscal 2001. This rose to $3.7 billion in 2002, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks and subsequent anthrax mailings, and has increased annually since.
The 2004 Project Bioshield legislation authorized spending of $5.6 billion in 10 years for bioterrorism countermeasures. Of this amount, $1.4 million is designated for anthrax vaccines.
The military for years has considered anthrax the greatest biological threat.
"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff considers anthrax to be the No. 1 biological threat agent," said Defense Department spokeswoman Barbara Goodno. "Other government agencies and civilian authorities agree. The lethal anthrax attacks of fall 2001, including a death in Connecticut, show how easy it is to disperse anthrax spores with deadly effect."
Some weapons experts have said the anthrax threat has been overstated and that there is no evidence that terrorist groups have been able to develop viable anthrax spores.
Anthrax spores can be delivered through the air and remain virulent longer than other agents. However, scientists have said that it would be as easy to distribute pathogens such as ricin and botulinum.
They have also said that anthrax is difficult to make and use and that winds can affect how the agent is spread.
The government needs to decide which agents to target and which are being promoted for "a political reason," said Victor Sidel, co-author of "Terrorism and Public Health: A Balanced Approach to Strengthening Systems and Protecting People."
Retired Air Force Col. John Richardson agreed.
"Politicians only want to be able to say - in the aftermath of a terrorist event -that, 'We did all we could do,'" he said. "Defending against hypothetical bioterrorism deaths will bring in votes and contributions. The spending is driven by political expediency, not the threat."
Money would be better spent on after-attack treatment, said Barbara Loe Fisher, president of the National Vaccine Information Center.
"Despite the fear and hysteria that has been created by physician health officials inside and outside of the Pentagon, there has not been one shred of evidence presented to the American people that biological weapons, including viable weaponized anthrax supplies, exist and are ready to be unleashed on the U.S.," she said.
Anthrax can be treated following an attack with antibiotics. The Health and Human Services Department said that response to an attack would be treatment with an existing vaccine along with antibiotics. There are enough antibiotics to treat 40 million people, according to the department.
The Food and Drug Administration said last year that these treatment methods are safe and effective, but added "long-term use of such therapies in individuals at high risk for anthrax disease, potentially for a period of years, has not been studied" (Thomas Williams, Hartford Courant, April 10).
