Decontamination workers prepare to enter a U.S. Senate building in November 2001 after anthrax-laden mail closed the building (AFP photo/Paul J. Richards). Universities Prepare New Defenders Against Bioterror By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The threat that biological agents will again be used against the United States has led U.S. universities to begin preparing this nation’s next generation of biodefenders (see GSN, Sept. 15, 2003)...Full Story

Washington Warns Pyongyang Against Nuclear Test Carrying out a nuclear test would be “a provocative act,” the United States warned North Korea on Friday (see GSN, May 6)...Full Story

Iran Prepares to Ratify Additional Protocol, Threatens to Break Off Negotiations with European Union The Iranian government is preparing legislation to ratify the Additional Protocol to its international nuclear safeguards agreement, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, May 6)...Full Story

	Monday, May 9, 2005

New Jersey Sites Pose Continued Terrorism Danger Dozens of vulnerable sites between Newark Liberty International Airport and Port Elizabeth, N.J. — a two-mile stretch deemed the country’s most enticing environment for terrorists in a 2000 congressional study — remain largely unguarded, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, April 18). “We put more resources into securing the average large bank in Manhattan than we do for the entire security of Port Newark,” said Stephen Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander who conducted the study and is now a security analyst for the Council on Foreign Relations. “That’s just irresponsible.” Cooperation has been spotty from private companies that own 80 percent of the most dangerous sites, officials said. The chemical industry has also fought federal efforts to enact stricter regulations, according to the Times. In addition, given the number of vulnerable sites — including three major oil and natural gas pipelines and more than a dozen chemical plants — the federal response has been inadequate, many security experts have said. Moreover, customs officials have said radiation-screening devices at Port Newark and Port Elizabeth are ineffective and need replacement, the Times reported (see related GSN story, today).  Meanwhile, the Homeland Security Department this year cut New Jersey’s terrorism security financing to about $60 million from $99 million last year, leading many security experts to complain that rural states like Montana receive three times as much money per capita as New Jersey, the Times reported. Homeland Security Department officials have visited more than 150 of the 300 most dangerous chemical plants in the country and pressed for enhanced security, said department spokeswoman Michelle Petrovich.  Northern New Jersey is “one of the safer areas because it has received the most attention in terms of protective measures,” Petrovich said (David Kocieniewski, New York Times, May 9). Back to top

Lugar Predicts Party-Line Committee Vote to Approve Bolton Nomination as U.N. Ambassador Senator Richard Lugar said yesterday he expects that all 10 Republican members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will band together to support the nomination of Undersecretary of State John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, May 6). The committee chairman (R-Ind.) also said he anticipates complete opposition from the eight panel Democrats to Bolton. That, however, would not stop the nomination from heading to the full Senate for consideration. The committee vote should occur as planned on Thursday, Lugar said on CBS News’ Face the Nation. “I have no doubts in all the testimony we’ve already uncovered … that John Bolton has been blunt, some would say even more than that. Some would say intimidating, abusive, tried to get people fired,” Lugar said. “But at the end of the day, nobody was fired. People’s feelings may have been bent out of shape.” “Somebody that bends things out of shape may be needed to wrench around the U.N.,” Lugar added. Lugar’s support for Bolton comes even though Bolton’s hard-line stance as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security on liability issues has held up efforts promoted by Lugar to dispose of 134 tons of Russian plutonium, Newsweek reported (Michael Hirsh, Newsweek, May 16). Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), one of four Republicans to express concerns about Bolton, said on ABC News’ This Week that he has yet to be presented with information that would lead him to vote against the appointment, AP reported (Siobhan McDonough, Associated Press/ABC News, May 9). Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that additional information on disputes between Bolton and U.S. intelligence analysts over Syria’s weapons program would not be released to the committee. Handing over the information on “internal deliberations” could deter debates by administration personnel, Rice said in a letter to ranking committee Democrat Joseph Biden (Del.). Biden submitted another letter to Rice on Saturday, saying the information is important in studying Bolton’s alleged habit of making public statements not supported by U.S. intelligence on other nations’ weapons programs. “The real question here is how far did John Bolton stretch the truth or stretch the facts, regarding intelligence,” Biden said on Face the Nation (Douglas Jehl, New York Times, May 9). Former CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin told the Foreign Relations Committee that Bolton crossed the line between policy and intelligence in pressing to have CIA analyst Fulton Armstrong reassigned over a disagreement on Cuban weapons efforts, the New York Times reported. “It’s perfectly all right for a policy-maker to express disagreement with [a national intelligence officer] or an analyst, and it’s perfectly all right for them to challenge such an individual vigorously, challenge their work vigorously,” McLaughlin testified on April 29, according to a transcript obtained by the Times. “But I think it’s different to then request, because of the disagreement, that the person be transferred. And — unless there is strong malfeasance here, and in this case, I had high regard for the individual’s work — therefore, I had a strong negative reaction to the suggestion about moving him.” McLaughlin said he told Armstrong’s supervisor that the analyst would “absolutely not” be transferred (Douglas Jehl, New York Times, May 7). Former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Otto Reich told the committee on Friday that he, rather than Bolton, tried to have the analyst transferred for poor performance, AP reported. Robert Hutchings, a one-time senior U.S. intelligence official, meanwhile said that he believed Bolton was making “politicized” speeches on Cuba and Syria whose claims were not supported by U.S. intelligence (Barry Schweid, Associated Press/Los Angeles Daily News, May 6). Back to top       Billions Needed to Replace U.S. Antiterror Equipment The U.S. Homeland Security Department expects to spend billions of dollars on screening equipment after experiencing troubles with technology bought in the wake of terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the New York Times reported yesterday (see GSN, May 4). “Everyone was standing in line with their silver bullets to make us more secure after Sept. 11,” said Randall Larsen, a retired Air Force colonel and former government science adviser. “We bought a lot of stuff off the shelf that wasn’t effective.” The federal government spent more than $4.5 billion on monitors for conventional and unconventional weaponry at ports, borders, airports, postal facilities and other locations, the Times reported. That included detectors that could not discern nuclear weapons radiation from radiation from cat litter or ceramic tiles; air monitors that would not indicate a biological weapons attack for 36 hours; and U.S. Postal Service equipment able only to screen a limited number of letters and only for anthrax, rather than a wider array of biological agents. Federal officials have argued that they sought the best equipment available at the time, rather than waiting for potentially better technology to be developed. One malfunctioning piece of equipment does not indicate a completely compromised defense system, officials said. “The nation is more secure in the deployment and use of these technologies versus having no technologies in place at all,” said Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for the Homeland Security Department. Additional screening technology is expected to cost the federal government up to $7 billion in coming years, the Times reported. One expert said such spending should be expected in the war on terror, while another warned against relying overly on technology as a means of security. “You are in a game where you are continually upgrading and you will be forever,” said physicist Thomas Hartwick, who evaluations aviation-screening equipment. “Technology does not substitute for strategy,” said James Jay Carafano, senior fellow for security at the Heritage Foundation. “It’s always easier for terrorists to change tactics than it is for us to throw up defenses to counter them. The best strategy to deal with terrorists is to find them and get them” (Eric Lipton, New York Times, May 8). Back to top

Washington Warns Pyongyang Against Nuclear Test Carrying out a nuclear test would be “a provocative act,” the United States warned North Korea on Friday (see GSN, May 6). U.S. satellite images have shown construction — including a viewing platform and other activity around tunnels in the Kilju area. In addition, satellite photos have indicated activity near North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear reactor. The reactor was turned off more than a month ago, possibly to remove spent fuel rods which contain plutonium that could be used to manufacture of nuclear bombs, the New York Times reported. “It’s still something of a mystery,” said one official. “It’s not clear if this construction is related to the rods or not.” However, officials have not ruled out the possibility that the reactor was powered down for maintenance or as an elaborate bluff by Pyongyang (David Sanger, New York Times, May 7). Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, yesterday told CNN that it appeared that Pyongyang was preparing for a nuclear test. “Basically, [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Il believes this is his card to play to stay on the world stage, to make demands,” Roberts said. “This is the only card they have to play” (Brian Knowlton, New York Times, May 8). A U.S. Defense Department official Saturday confirmed reports that North Korea could be preparing for a nuclear test in June, South Korea’s Choson Ilbo daily reported. He said there were several tunnels suitable for a test throughout the country, but only one place experiencing a lot of activity. “The things now happening in North Korea in connection with preparations for a nuclear test are being watched not just by the United States, but also by China, Japan and South Korea,” he said (Choson Ilbo/BBC Monitoring, May 8). South Korean officials, however, were skeptical that the tunnel was connected to a potential nuclear test, Agence France-Presse reported today. “The South Korean government has been aware since the late 1990s that a tunnel was being dug in the area,” a top official told the Joongang daily Friday. “We have been closely monitoring the work, but there has been no sign indicating preparations for a nuclear arms test,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 9). South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon called on Pyongyang to reconsider any plans for a nuclear test, AFP reported Saturday. “I have expressed the position of my government shared together with Japan and other participating countries in the six-party talks that it is in the interest of North Korea to make a strategic decision to abandon its nuclear weapons development program,” Ban said. Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura said Tokyo “hasn’t gotten any definite information” on a potential North Korean test. “All sorts of information seems to be going around the world and it is very difficult for us to ascertain any of this information,” Machimura said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 7). The International Atomic Energy Agency has estimated that North Korea could have five or six nuclear weapons, Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said, adding that a nuclear test by Pyongyang could “open a Pandora’s box,” CNN reported. “We knew they had the plutonium that could be converted into five or six North Korea weapons,” said ElBaradei. “We know that they had the industrial infrastructure to weaponize this plutonium. We have read also that they have the delivery system,” he said. He added that a nuclear test by Pyongyang “would have disastrous political repercussions.” ElBaradei expressed frustration that his agency could do little about the situation at this point. “We cannot do very much as an international institution right now on this issue other than to express concern,” he said (CNN.com, May 9). Pyongyang, meanwhile, has hinted it may return to stalled six-party talks to discuss its nuclear program, Reuters reported today. Late yesterday, the North Korean Foreign Ministry announced that Pyongyang wanted to meet with U.S. officials to confirm reports that Washington was willing to recognize North Korea and hold bilateral discussions on the sidelines of the six-party talks. “If there be any request from our side, we only expressed our intention to directly meet the U.S. side to confirm whether those reports were true before making a final determination,” a spokesman said (Herskovitz/Lim, Reuters, May 9). North Korea also demanded an apology for what it described as hostile U.S. comments before making any commitment to resume talks, the head of a Russian delegation to Pyongyang said yesterday. “Pyongyang considers that the ultimate goal is adhesion of the Korean Peninsula to nuclear-free status,” Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian Duma, was quoted by Interfax as saying. “We were informed that without public official apologies by Washington in this regard there will be no reconsideration by Pyongyang of its position on six-party talks,” Kosachev said (Agence France-Presse/Interactive Investor, May 7). Elsewhere, Beijing rejected a proposal last week by Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill to pressure North Korea to resume talks by cutting off its oil supply, the Washington Post reported Saturday. Senior Chinese official Yang Xiyu dismissed the proposal as “not a new idea.” He added that cutting off food would have the greatest impact on Pyongyang and that Beijing was considering expanding a ban on certain unspecified exports, according to U.S. officials briefed on the talks (Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, May 7). The six-party talks process looks “like a futile course of action,” said North Korea specialist Robert Einhorn, a former State Department nonproliferation official who is now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “We should already have been exploring a Plan B,” said Einhorn, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday. Washington, however, wants to pursue the talks while strengthening efforts such as the Proliferation Security Initiative, a program aimed at interdicting shipments of WMD-related materials, said a senior State Department official. “There are certain other things we can do to bring pressure on North Korea,” said the official.  “It doesn’t require us to slam the door or set an arbitrary cutoff for the six-party talks. As long as they’re useful, we can leave them open.” Many diplomats, however, have advocated that Washington conduct bilateral talks with the North Koreans. “The closer this gets to a crisis stage, the more pressure that will be on the Bush administration to forget the semantics game and talk to them directly,” said Scott Snyder, a senior researcher with the Asia Foundation. “If they are going to get any deal that sticks, the Americans will have to talk to Kim Jong Il because that’s who we’re making the deal with. It can’t all be done through Beijing by remote control,” he said (Barbara Demick, Los Angeles Times, May 7). Back to top       Iran Prepares to Ratify Additional Protocol, Threatens to Break Off Negotiations with European Union The Iranian government is preparing legislation to ratify the Additional Protocol to its international nuclear safeguards agreement, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, May 6). The bill would be approved by the government and submitted to parliament, said Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi, who gave no schedule for the process. Approval of the Additional Protocol would give the International Atomic Energy Agency the authority to conduct more extensive investigations of Iran’s nuclear program (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 8). Meanwhile, Iranian officials threatened Saturday to end nuclear negotiations with the European Union if no progress is seen, AFP reported. “We told the Europeans that, if the negotiations did not bear the expected results, their continuation was useless,” Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi told state television. “Our threats in connection with enrichment are not hollow and we will soon make a decision,” he said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, May 7). Iranian hard-liners yesterday called for halting the negotiations, the Associated Press reported. Moreover, Iran should end its uranium enrichment freeze, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the head of the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told state radio. “Iran has taken the necessary steps to build confidence and show transparency,” Boroujerdi said. “The time has come to end the voluntary suspension of uranium enrichment.” “France, Britain and Germany have shown that they don’t have the necessary capacity and powers to reach an understanding with... Iran,” he said (Ali Akbar Dareini, Associated Press/Philadelphia Inquirer, May 9). Back to top       IAEA Chief Warns of Nuclear Armageddon Acquisition by a growing number of countries of technology to produce weapon-grade uranium and plutonium would put the world on the road to nuclear Armageddon, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said Friday (see GSN, May 2). “That means in the next 10 to 20 years we’ll have many countries who are not officially nuclear-weapon states (becoming) virtual nuclear-weapon states. That is a good recipe for our self-destruction,” he said. ElBaradei has proposed a five-year moratorium on uranium enrichment and plutonium production, Reuters reported. While many countries initially balked at the idea, ElBaradei said more had begun to see the need for restrictions. “I can see a gradual, certain shift in looking more and more positively towards a moratorium,” he said. “It might not be five years, it might be a shorter period of time. It might not be called a moratorium but some sort of self-imposed restraint” (Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, May 6). ElBaradei wants stricter controls on nuclear materials that “would be a real sea change in the way we have been managing nuclear energy,” he told the Associated Press on Friday. In addition to his own proposal, he has asked the conference to consider several additional strategies, ranging from tighter controls on dual-use equipment sales, to making all enrichment and reprocessing operations multilateral ventures. U.S. President George W. Bush has proposed limiting sales of nuclear-related technology to the dozen or so countries that already have it, while offering to sell nuclear fuel “at a reasonable cost.” While ElBaradei said Bush’s idea “has merit,” he pointed out that many countries can develop the technology on their own and that many others would find the double standard for those allowed to have the technology and those not allowed unacceptable (Charles Hanley, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 7). ElBaradei also expressed disappointment that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference, meeting in New York, has not been able to agree on an agenda, Reuters reported (see GSN, May 6; Charbonneau, Reuters, May 6). Back to top       Germany to Address U.S. Nuclear Weapons Withdrawal The possible withdrawal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Germany will be discussed in NATO committee meetings, German Defense Minister Peter Struck said Friday (see GSN, May 3). “I agree with Foreign Minister [Joschka] Fischer that we should take up this issue in NATO committees,” Struck said last week at the U.S. Air Force base in at Ramstein. Fischer last week called requests by Germany’s ruling party for removal of U.S. nuclear weapons “a reasonable initiative,” Agence France-Presse reported. Moving forward with total withdrawal would require consultations with other European nations where U.S. nuclear weapons are stationed, Struck said. There are an estimated 480 U.S. nuclear weapon in Europe; 150 of those are believed to be in Germany, according to AFP (Agence France-Presse/DefenseNews.com, May 6). Back to top       Security Costs at U.S. Nuke Labs Could Force Closures; Computers Missing at Idaho Site The United States could save billions of dollars by closing some of its nuclear weapons laboratories or consolidating their nuclear weapons fuel at fewer sites, according to a report to be released this week by the Project on Government Oversight (see GSN, March 4). It costs $740 million each year to safeguard the 13 U.S. nuclear weapons facilities from terrorist attacks, the New York Times reported. That cost is expected to increase. However, the POGO report states that the government could save $2.7 billion over three years by concentrating plutonium and weapon-grade uranium at a limited number of locations. “No one so far has looked at the entire complex, and said, ‘Why do we still need this?’” said Danielle Brian, POGO executive director. Former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham last year recommended reducing the number of sites containing weapon-grade nuclear materials “to the absolute minimum, consistent with carrying out our missions.” An advisory panel is expected to issue a report on the issue in June, the Times reported. National Nuclear Security Administration chief Linton Brooks questioned details of the POGO report, but acknowledged security problems with some sites. He singled out the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee. “In the Second World War, the threat was spies,” Brooks said. “So you went to a remote valley and you had a pretty good control point to make sure which people went in. If the threat has become a quasimilitary attack force, no sane person would put something in a valley.” The POGO report states that removing nuclear material from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would save up to $70 million in equipment costs and $315 million over a period of years for labor, according to the Times (Matthew Wald, New York Times, May 7). Meanwhile, 269 computers and disk drives cannot be accounted for at the Idaho National Laboratory, the Associated Press reported. None of the equipment was to be used for processing classified information, laboratory officials said. However, some might contain “export-controlled” information on nuclear technology. Energy Department auditors examining security at the laboratory found personal computers and disk drives that had been left without proper documentation in hallways near unsecured exits, AP reported. The Idaho facility has conducted nuclear and weapons development for the U.S. Navy and stored radioactive waste from nuclear weapons production, according to AP (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, May 7). Elsewhere, Los Alamos National Laboratory Director Peter Nanos announced Friday he will leave the New Mexico facility on May 15 for a job with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, the Times reported (see GSN, May 6). “It has been a distinct pleasure to work with you,” Nanos said in a letter to Los Alamos workers, “and I will always look back fondly at my time at Los Alamos.” A series of safety and security problems at Los Alamos under Nanos’ two-year tenure, and questions on his management style, might have forced the University of California to push him out as it considers whether to seek to maintain the management contract for the laboratory, experts said. Nanos’ new job will involve planning and administering research and development work at Defense Department agency, the Times reported (William Broad, New York Times, May 7). Acting Director Robert Kuckuck said he would work to resolve the “discord and concern” that have developed at the laboratory, the Los Angeles Times reported. He could not say whether the might undo any of Nanos’ policies. “It’s premature for me to say what I will change,” Kuckuck said (Vartabedian/Hong, Los Angeles Times, May 7). Back to top

Universities Prepare New Defenders Against Bioterror By Chris Schneidmiller Global Security Newswire WASHINGTON — The threat that biological agents will again be used against the United States has led U.S. universities to begin preparing this nation’s next generation of biodefenders (see GSN, Sept. 15, 2003). While there have been no chemical, radiological or nuclear attacks on U.S. soil, the anthrax and ricin mailings have made it clear that there are people willing and able to use biological agents here. If it is too late to hope for the best — no attacks — U.S. institutions are preparing for the worst. The U.S. Health and Human Services Department awarded more than $50 million over fiscal years 2003 and 2004 to institutions for training and educating public health professionals against bioterrorism. Meanwhile, three universities — St. Louis, George Mason in northern Virginia and Georgetown in Washington, D.C. — have gone further by offering graduate degrees in biodefense. “We don’t have trained experts in biodefense in the country because this science has not existed as a science like physics or chemistry,” said Ken Alibek, executive director for education at the National Center for Biodefense at George Mason University. The United States needs at least 7,000 to 12,000 trained biodefenders working for the military, intelligence agencies, law enforcement and first-responder services, and in the medical and engineering fields, Alibek said. “This in my opinion is the smallest number we need to have,” he said. The universities join hundreds of higher-education institutions now offering homeland security-related courses, certificate programs and degrees. Many of those have arisen in the years since the Sept. 11 attacks, said Todd Stewart, executive director of the National Academic Consortium for Homeland Security at Ohio State University.  The consortium alone works with 260 universities and colleges that offer education and research on homeland security issues. “There’s no indication that the threat’s going to diminish anytime soon,” Stewart said. “I think we’ll see more and more programs. I think we’re in the beginning of a new wave of programs dealing with biologicals,” said Greg Evans, director of St. Louis University’s Institute for Biosecurity. Science of the Future Alibek isn’t looking to simply ready his students for a biological attack scenario. He wants to educate the future policy-makers who will prepare the U.S. strategy to prevent a strike, the scientists who will develop the technology and the agents who will pursue the terrorists. “We’re not training bioterrorists, we’re training experts, defenders,” he said.  A former high-level Soviet biological weapons official, Alibek moved from offense to defense after he defected to the United States in 1992 and helped found the National Center for Biodefense at George Mason. He said he always planned to develop an education program at the research center. Radiological and chemical agents were “more or less explored,” but biodefense was “completely new.” “It’s a science of the future,” he said. The first class of 80 students began classes in 2003; most were in the master’s and doctoral programs, with a few working for certificates. There are 220 students now enrolled in the program, and Alibek expects that to rise to about 350 by next fall. Students choose one of four concentrations: —      Nonproliferation, studying the potential spread of biological weapons and the treaties and legislation meant to slow that advance. They also analyze biological weapons production and dual-use technology; —      Medical Defense, researching new forms of biodefense, along with related topics such as microbial forensic science to investigate events, identify pathogens and analyze possible sources of an attack; —      Engineering Defense/Countermeasures, preparing measures for detection and control of a biological release, and for protecting the populace from a pathogen; and —      Law Enforcement/Counterterrorism, exploring the motivations for terrorist organizations to use weapons of mass destruction, and determining the threshold at which groups would use such weapons. There are hundreds of unresolved issues in the U.S. preparations for a WMD attack, Alibek said: Penicillin remains a recommended treatment for victims of inhalational anthrax, even though the antibiotic has never worked in such an incident and during the 2001 anthrax attacks, officials prescribed the stronger ciprofloxacin. The United States is paying $877 million for a new anthrax vaccine without proof that it will work better than existing treatments, Alibek said. The Health and Human Services Department is focused on developing new antibiotics rather than determining what protection existing treatments might convey to people exposed to a biological agent. “It’s the absence of real experts. That’s the cause,” Alibek said.   Alibek hopes his students will resolve some of those problems. The first 20 to 30 master’s students will graduate this spring or summer, while doctoral students should begin to finish their work next year. Eighty percent of students are professionals in the military, government, health and private sectors, while others are already being hired by various government entities and contractors. Registered nurse Diane Doyle is set to graduate in August with her master’s degree and will move directly on to the doctoral program. Meanwhile, she is already contributing to an online instructional program being prepared by George Mason and George Washington universities to help nurses in different sectors — from hospitals to public schools — prepare for a WMD event. The curriculum for the National Nurse Emergency Preparedness Initiative should be ready by September, Doyle said. “The bottom line is if it’s a true disaster with big numbers, it doesn’t matter what area you work in,” she said. The 2001 anthrax attacks were a “huge eye-opener,” Doyle said. As news filtered in on the first death in Florida, she and co-workers at Inova Fairfax Hospital found they knew nothing about the virus. The biodefense program, which she came across in the GMU alumni magazine in 2003, offered the chance to dramatically increase her knowledge and that of her fellow medical professionals. “I told my husband I’m going to get in this program and start educating nurses. That’s my goal,” Doyle said. Doctoral student Katie Crockett said she plans to work in threat analysis. Like countless others, the Sept. 11 attacks and the anthrax mailings that quickly followed left her feeling “uncomfortably vulnerable.” Crockett began work at the National Center for Biodefense in early 2003 as a technical writer, and entered the doctoral program that fall. If learning more about the dangers of biological weapons is not exactly an antidote to fear, the program offers a chance for people to learn to do something about it. “Through my work at the center, I realized that there is a serious gap in our national defense, specifically that there are very few true experts in biodefense — people who have not only an understanding of the pathogens that pose the greatest threat, but also of how we can best defend against them from medical, engineering and political standpoints,” Crockett said by e-mail. “The knowledge and experience I have gained through working at the center and participating in the graduate program will enable me to make substantive contribution,” she added. New Leadership for New Threats The George Mason University program has the advantage of being next door to the nation’s capital, where many of its students are already working. St. Louis University has to stretch to gather its biodefense student body. Program director Evans said public health officials and first-responders expressed interest in a program as he traveled the country talking about the threat of bioterror in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The master’s degree and certificate programs arose from those discussions, he said. “Most of the people expressing interest in this program were people who could not leave their job and go back to school,” Evans said. Planning began two years ago for program that could offer online reading material, audio lectures, exercises and discussion groups to help fill the gaps in U.S. preparation to respond to a biological attack. Evans said the national focus has been on preparing first-responders, at the expense of the public health and medical care communities. Health officials still find themselves unprepared to organize widespread vaccinations or distribution of antibiotics, he said; hospitals lack capacity to handle a surge of patients exposed to anthrax or smallpox. The St. Louis program aims to help students develop plans and coordinate responses to an attack. To date there has been interest from professionals in fields ranging from health to corporate security and contingency management. The need for such training is significant not just in obvious sectors such as homeland security, Evans said. Corporate personnel need to know how to protect their employees from infection and to ensure their families are supported in the event of a natural or purposeful outbreak, he said. The threat from both is rising, as terrorists become more sophisticated in developing weapons of mass destruction and infections like SARS and Avian flu continue to arise, Evans said. Fifteen students are expected when the program begins in the fall, and the school hopes 50 will join by the third year for the biosecurity master’s degree program or shorter certificate program. The 11-course master’s curriculum includes courses on public health response to bioterrorism, fundamentals of infectious disease, crisis communication, risk assessment and the mental health consequences of terrorism. Students will also be able to attend two-week summer sessions conducting tabletop exercises at the university. “What we anticipate is they’re going to be better prepared to act as the leadership for their organization for responding to a biological disaster,” Evans said. Back to top

Former Iraqi Minister Seeks to Stay in New Zealand Iraq’s former agriculture minister is seeking refugee status in New Zealand in an effort to halt authorities’ efforts to force him out of the country, Agence France-Presse reported today (see GSN, May 6). Amer Mahdi Al-Khashali was involved with Iraq’s chemical weapons program while serving as agriculture minister from 1979 to 1982, said New Zealand opposition lawmaker Winston Peters, who first identified al-Khashali. Al-Khashali and his wife fear they would be in danger if forced to return to Iraq, said attorney Simon Laurent, who filed the refugee application with the New Zealand Immigration Service. “The fear would not have arisen but for the publication of Mr. Al-Khashali’s name in recent days, both nationally and internationally, and the links made between Mr. Al-Khashali and the former government of Saddam Hussein,” Laurent said in a statement. Laurent said Peters abused his role as a lawmaker in identifying al-Khashali and two other former Iraqi officials living in New Zealand. Peters’ actions offered al-Khashali grounds for legal action that could enable him to stay in the country, said Laurent (Agence France-Presse/Khaleej Times, May 9).   Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

© Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.