Chimp, Human Antibody Hybrid Could Fight Smallpox

By Chris Schneidmiller
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — A treatment combining human and chimpanzee antibodies could be used to reduce the side effects of the smallpox vaccine, or to counter the disease itself, researchers said in an article published this week (see GSN, Dec. 7, 2005).

The smallpox vaccine now stockpiled in the United States has been found to cause potentially fatal complications for people suffering from impaired immune systems or skin conditions such as eczema. Pregnant women and children less than 12 months in age also could be put at risk by receiving the vaccine.

Vaccinia immune globulin (VIG) — antibodies collected from the blood of people who have received the smallpox vaccine — is now used to treat complications from inoculation. However, the eradication of naturally occurring smallpox has resulted in limited stocks of the globulin, which also in rare instances could carry other viral agents to recipients.

A team of scientists led by the researchers from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases reported a possible answer to the dilemma in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Researchers found that the hybrid human-chimpanzee antibodies in test-tube experiments blocked the spread of the variola virus that causes smallpox and the vaccinia virus used in the vaccine, according to an NIAID release.

While the smallpox vaccine might take a week or more to take effect, antibodies — proteins that neutralize viruses and bacteria — go to work immediately. That could be crucial for safeguarding the health of unvaccinated people exposed to the pathogen in a bioterror incident, researcher Robert Purcell, co-head of the NIAID Laboratory of Infectious Diseases, said in an interview.

“This is an important finding in the race to develop effective measures against a potential bioterror attack involving the deadly smallpox virus,” Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, said in the release. “This study shows that there are potential alternatives to existing treatments and perhaps to existing vaccines that we can use to enhance our arsenal of medical countermeasures.”

Purcell said this project, like many others, began as fears of biological terrorism grew following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Using chimpanzee antibodies offers the opportunity to develop a stronger countermeasure than simply using human samples. The two species’ antibodies are “virtually identical,” Purcell said. However, chimpanzees in experiments are given a stronger strain of vaccine than generally used in humans, which creates a “more robust” antibody, he said.

Researchers collected antibodies taken from the bone marrow of two chimpanzees that had received the smallpox vaccine. They then combined those antibodies with a human antibody to create two hybrids.

Both hybrid types blocked the spread of the vaccinia virus in test-tube work, while one eliminated a strain of the smallpox virus.

The scientists then moved on to experiments with mice. The hybrids protected the animals from weight loss after they were exposed to the vaccinia virus, while a control group of mice that received no protection suffered weight loss corresponding to the reproduction of the virus in their lungs.

Mice injected with vaccinia survived after receiving varying doses of one of the hybrid antibodies or a 5-microgram dose of vaccinia immune globulin. All five mice in the control group that received no treatment died or were euthanized after losing 70 percent of their weight, according to the press release.

Mice injected with one 90-microgram dose of hybrid antibody 48 hours after exposure to smallpox lost a small amount of weight but quickly recovered. Mice that received the globulin after the same time delay lost significantly more weight.

“Our antibodies were considerably better than the VIG,” Purcell said.

The hybrid antibodies need to be tested in another animal model against monkeypox, which is similar to smallpox but less virulent in humans, Purcell said.

The Food and Drug Administration generally requires testing of two different animals for drugs that cannot be tested in humans, Purcell said. He could not say when the hybrid antibody might be approved for public use.

“It’ll be up to the government to decide what they want to do with it,” he said.

Back to top

Lower-Dose Vaccines Developed

Canadian scientists have developed lower-dose vaccines that could stretch out the amount of drugs available to treat victims of a bioterror incident or a natural outbreak, the Vancouver Sun reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 4).

University of British Columbia researchers used a human immune system component known as TAP — Transporter Associated with Antigen Processing — to heighten the economy of several vaccines.

Mice exposed to smallpox, rabies and measles survived after receiving the altered vaccines, even at one-100th of the normal dosage, the Sun reported.

“As vaccination against a variety of pathogens becomes more widespread, there will be a greater need to increase the efficiency of the (inoculation agent) while reducing the size of the batches of vaccine required for vaccination for an entire population,” the researchers wrote in an article published this week in PloS Pathogens. “This would be particularly important during times of acute need, when rapid responses are required during an emergent epidemic.”

A lower-dose version of the smallpox vaccine could also be beneficial for people with suppressed immune systems or certain skin conditions who are at risk for complications from the inoculation now in use, researchers said.

“In recent years the threat of bioterrorism agents such as anthrax and smallpox has heightened the need for the rapid development of effective new vaccines,” the articles states. “One of the major stumbling blocks to the implementation of any vaccine is the toxic side effects on the vaccine candidate” (Pamela Fayerman, Vancouver Sun, Jan. 26).

Back to top

U.S. Homeland Security Department Eyes “Resilience” Focus for Infrastructure; Key Mayor Balks

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — An anticipated new U.S. Homeland Security Department focus on critical-infrastructure “resilience,” as opposed to “protection,” drew fire from a key mayor this morning (see GSN, June 24, 2005).

The Homeland Security Advisory Council’s 10-month old Critical Infrastructure Task Force will within weeks publish a report stressing resilience as the new watchword in that area, council emergency-response head Jeff Gaynor said at a U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting. The council of state, local and private sector officials is the main advisory body to the Homeland Security secretary.

“We have got to be able to take a lickin’ and keep on tickin’ regardless of the cost,” Gaynor told the mayors.

In a Jan. 10 presentation, Critical Infrastructure Task Force Chairwoman Ruth David offered two definitions of resilience: “an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change,” and “the capability of a system to maintain its functions and structure in the face of internal and external change and to degrade gracefully when it must.”

As defined by Homeland Security, critical infrastructure includes water systems, public-health networks, locations housing hazardous materials, the food supply, telecommunications equipment and a host of other facilities.

The policy of stressing resilience in preparing that infrastructure for terrorism is so far largely conceptual. Some critics worry, however, that the approach could shift needed funding away from efforts to defend against an attack and provide it instead to those planning for continuity after an incident.

Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley, chairman of the mayors’ Homeland Security Task Force, appeared to take exception today to Gaynor’s assertion that a focus on resilience is justified in part by the impossibility of determining “how much protection is enough.”

“We can tell you how much protection is too little,” O’Malley said in closing a meeting that had opened with mayors’ appeals to Homeland Security officials for more federal funds.

“We look forward,” O’Malley said, “to stopping the constant onslaught of cuts in Homeland Security dollars that flow to cities.”

David, who is also president of national security research group Analytic Services, said in the Jan. 10 presentation that her task force’s first recommendation would be to “promulgate critical-infrastructure resilience as the top-level strategic objective — the desired outcome — to drive national policy and planning.”

Homeland Security should focus on resiliency, she said, because it implies a “quantifiable target” — defined by the “time required to restore full functionality” — and because it is “aligned with private-sector interests” such as “continuity of business.” The department’s goal for critical infrastructure, she said, should change from “protection against intentional acts” to “resilience to all hazards.”

Back to top

Pentagon Plans to Create Counter-WMD Terrorism Unit

The U.S. Defense Department’s latest strategy report calls for establishing a special military unit to prevent terrorists from obtaining weapons of mass destruction, the Washington Times reported today (see GSN, Sept. 27, 2005).

Portions of the Quadrennial Defense Review, scheduled to be sent to Congress on Feb. 6, have been made available to the Times.

The review states that the Pentagon plans to “develop new defensive capabilities in anticipation of the continued evolution of WMD threats” such as electromagnetic pulse weapons, portable nuclear weapons, genetically engineered pathogens and new forms of chemical weapons.

“The United States will have increased efforts to locate, track and tag shipments of WMD,” the report states. “There shall be a joint task force for the elimination of WMD.”

The Army’s 20th Support Command is to be a major component of the task force, becoming a rapid deployment unit “to command and control WMD elimination missions by 2007,” the report says. 

The new task force would have several hundred troops and be equipped with aircraft. It is expected to have its own intelligence component, defense officials told the Times.

“They will possess an expanded ability to locate, tag and track dangerous individuals and other high value targets, globally,” according to the document. The unit will also have “greater capacity to detect, locate, and render safe WMD” (Bill Gertz, Washington Times, Jan. 27).

Back to top

Leaders Talk Terrorism, WMD at Davos

In the shadow of the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program, governmental officials and analysts gathered in Switzerland yesterday considered strategies for reducing the threat posed by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Jan. 17).

International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei canceled a session at the World Economic Forum in Davos in order to attend closed-door meetings on the nuclear standoff, the Associated Press reported.

Restricting access to enriched uranium is one strategy for preventing use of a nuclear weapon, forum participants said.

“That means no new national production of highly enriched uranium from which a bomb could be made, and that’s the issue over Iran,” said nuclear weapons expert Graham Allison, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University.

A football-sized amount of enriched uranium could kill as many as 1 million people, AP reported.

While al-Qaeda has yet to master production of a nuclear weapon or radiological “dirty bomb,” the terrorist organization is “just one good idea short idea short of building a nuclear weapon,” said John Holdren, director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said nations must consider various factors — including consequences and vulnerability — in assessing the threat of a terrorist attack. Railroads, public transportation and chemical plants are among potential targets.

“I personally think the biggest danger we face is a nation-state developing a bomb … and making that bomb available to somebody not inhibited to using it,” Chertoff said. “That is a nightmare scenario” (Paisley Dodds, Associated Press/phillyBurbs.com, Jan. 27).

Back to top

World Powers Wrangle Over IAEA Text on Iran Nuclear Standoff

Russia opposes a key clause in a draft resolution for the International Atomic Energy Agency Feb. 2 emergency board session on Iran’s controversial nuclear activities, Agence France-Presse reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 26).

The confidential draft encourages the Security Council to “consider making clear to Iran that outstanding questions” can be resolved by responding to agency calls for a nuclear freeze, according to AFP.

Russia objects to that clause because Tehran’s failure to meet the demand would open the door to Security Council action, said a senior diplomat.

“The Russians object that if the council is empowered to take any sort of action, that this will go further, an automatism that will set off a chain of reactions” under the U.N. Charter, said the diplomat.

“If Iran does not do what the resolution tells them, then this could lead to sanctions, or even more,” meaning military action, the diplomat said.

Russia wants the change the clause to have the IAEA Board of Governors inform the Security Council about the situation without taking any action, according to the diplomat.

A second diplomat said Moscow wants a “two-step” process under which the Security Council would first be informed of the matter, with time allowed for further diplomacy until the next regular IAEA board meeting, scheduled for March 6.

U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday expressed support for a Russian compromise offer to enrich uranium for Iran, but said the United States would continue its push for Security Council referral.

“The Russians came up with the idea and I support it. And the reason why I think it makes sense is because I do believe people ought to be allowed to have civilian nuclear power,” Bush said.

“However, I don’t believe nontransparent regimes that threaten the security of the world should be allowed to gain the technologies necessary to make a weapon. And the Iranians have said, ‘We want a weapon.’ And it’s not in the world’s interests that they have a weapon,” he added (Michael Adler, Agence France-Presse I/IranMania.com, Jan. 26).

White House spokesman Scott McClellan acknowledged yesterday afternoon that Bush misspoke regarding Iran’s stated intentions for its nuclear program, the New York Times reported today.

“He was referring to their behavior,” McClellan said. “Our concern is their intention is to develop a nuclear weapon under the guise of a civilian program.”

Bush’s misstatement could, however, firm up beliefs among IAEA board members that he is convinced that Iran is pursuing nuclear arms, according to the Times.

Meanwhile, experts have said that working out the details of the complex Russian compromise proposal could take months or longer, according to the Times. The size of the program and the level of involvement that would be given to Iranian engineers are among the major questions that remain to be answered.

In addition, Russian and European officials have said the proposal makes no economic or technological sense from Tehran’s perspective, while the United States continues to oppose even Iran’s uranium conversion operation.

“There are those who would argue that conversion is not proliferation-significant because it does not produce weapons-grade material, but from our perspective, conversion is another step forward to acquire enrichment capability,” Gregory Schulte, U.S. ambassador the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Wednesday (Sanger/Sciolino, New York Times, Jan. 27).

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice yesterday expressed impatience with Iran’s newfound interest in Russia’s proposal, Reuters reported.

Tehran is “doing nothing but trying to throw up chaff so that they are not referred to the Security Council and people shouldn’t let them get away with it. ... The time (for a formal referral) has come,” she said.

“The time for talking outside the Security Council is over,” Rice said.

She added that, although China and Russia remain opposed to Security Council action against Iran, both consider its nuclear ambitions a “very serious issue.”

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told CNN that “the Iranians have been very effective in using their oil and natural gas to persuade China, India and other countries to their side. We have to correct that” (Carol Giacomo, Reuters, Jan. 27).

Iran, meanwhile, softened its support for the Russian proposal, AFP reported.

“The Russian proposal is not sufficient for Iran’s nuclear energy needs,” top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said today.

Larijani added, however, that “one cannot say that it is a negative proposal.”

“We had a round of talks over it and we will do the next round,” he said (Agence France-Presse II/Yahoo!News, Jan. 27).

A top EU official said yesterday that the European Commission was “rather skeptical” about Tehran’s interest in the proposal, AFP reported.

“As for the renewed interest in the Russian ideas which foresee uranium enrichment outside Iran, given its previous rejection, I think we are rather skeptical,” said External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferreo-Waldner.

“It is difficult to believe that this is not just a delaying tactic,” she said (Agence France-Presse III, Jan. 26).

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said yesterday he remained hopeful that the proposal could help resolve the situation, AFP reported.

The Russian proposal could help Iran go through a “rehabilitation period” in which it would forgo uranium enrichment, ElBaradei said.

“Iran needs to be assured that they can use nuclear power for electricity but the international community needs to be assured that the Iranian program is exclusively for peace purposes,” he said (Agence France-Presse III/IranMania.com, Jan. 26).

Back to top

Indo-U.S. Nuclear Deal Hits Snags

Talks between top Indian and U.S. officials last week have raised doubts that a draft nuclear technology sharing agreement would be ready for congressional consideration ahead of a state visit to India by President George W. Bush in early March, the Financial Times reported yesterday (see GSN, Jan. 26).

“Certainly we intend to finish the agreement before the president’s trip, but we are not at the stage where we could call it complete,” one senior Bush administration official told the Times.

“Not much progress was made in closing the gap between the two sides,” a U.S. official in Washington said, referring to last week’s talks. “We are waiting for a new proposal from the Indians in the next week to 10 days. It won’t happen [in time for the trip] if there is no movement.”

India has yet to present a detailed plan for separating its civil and military nuclear facilities, the Times reported. No agreement has been reached on whether India’s civilian nuclear sites would permanently fall under international safeguards, among other issues.

“Congress might like India and want to help India, but it has to be convinced that making this exception for India will strengthen the nonproliferation regime. Right now the drafts just don’t cut the mustard. If there isn’t a clear majority of its facilities under inspection, it will be hard to sell,” said a U.S. official in New Delhi.

Differences remain over safeguards for India’s breeder reactor program, which could produce weapon-grade plutonium, said George Perkovich, vice president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“It is hard to see anything meaningful emerging. The talks weren’t a step forward or backwards. We are kind of standing there.  The administration overestimated their power and logic and underestimated the problems and they are panicking,” he said (Daniel/Johnson, Financial Times, Jan. 26).

India yesterday protested U.S. Ambassador David Mulford’s suggestion that any deal was dependent on New Delhi backing Washington’s effort to refer Iran’s controversial nuclear activities to the U.N. Security Council, the Associated Press reported.

Indian Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran told Mulford that his remarks “were inappropriate and not conducive to building a strong partnership between our two independent democracies,” the External Affairs Ministry said in a statement.

“India’s vote on any possible resolution on the Iran nuclear issue at the (International Atomic Energy Agency) would be determined by India’s own judgment of the merits of the case,” the Foreign Ministry quoted Saran as telling Mulford (Ashok Sharma, Associated Press/San Jose Mercury News, Jan. 26).

Back to top

Sandia Ruled Out for RNEP, but not its Resources

By David Ruppe
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — In the latest twist in the Bush administration’s Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator saga, a senior official recently confirmed that an Energy Department facility would not be available for a key, controversial research test this year — but said its equipment and “expertise” could be (see GSN, Dec. 15, 2005).

In a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) earlier this month, National Nuclear Security Administration chief Linton Brooks wrote that Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman “has directed that no sled test for this program be conducted at Sandia [National Laboratories in New Mexico], even if funded by” the Defense Department.

The decision was made, “In response to concerns by some members of Congress that performing this sled test at Sandia would imply continued research on RNEP,” the Jan. 9 letter says.

Congress for fiscal 2005 and the current fiscal 2006 withheld requested funding for the feasibility study of the nuclear “bunker buster.” While administration officials argue the weapon could be necessary to destroy buried, hardened enemy facilities, critics charge that developing a new atomic weapons capability would undermine U.S. nonproliferation efforts. The effort was wasteful, they also said, as the weapon was unlikely to be used because of the potential for unintended casualties.

Congress this year however did provide the requested $4 million for the Defense Department to conduct the sled test, stating that it could inform a feasibility assessment of developing a conventional penetrator capability. The sled test involves slamming a mock warhead into a huge block of concrete to study its ability to withstand the shock as it blasts its way underground.

A senior Air Force official said in a Defense Daily article last month that even were the test conducted at a Defense Department facility, data would be used to assess the nuclear penetrator option if funding could be obtained for that program in the next fiscal year. 

Feinstein in a Dec. 21 letter to Brooks sought assurance that “no nuclear testing related to [the] bunker buster program will be conducted at any Department of Energy facilities.”

While Brooks in his response indicated the test would not proceed at Sandia, he added, “If DOD chooses to conduct the test at a DOD facility, we believe it is fully consistent with the intent of Congress for Sandia to provide equipment and technical expertise in support of a DOD study of conventional earth penetrators.”

Feinstein spokesman Howard Gantman said in an e-mail today, “We are still reviewing the letter.”

Back to top

Bush Says No Compromise on North Korea Sanctions

U.S. President George W. Bush said yesterday that his administration would not compromise on financial sanctions imposed on North Korea for alleged financial misconduct, Agence France-Presse reported (see GSN, Jan. 26).

“When somebody is counterfeiting our money, we want to stop them from doing that. And so we are aggressively saying to the North Koreans, ‘Don’t counterfeit our money,’” Bush said.

The U.S. Treasury Department last year accused Macau-based Banco Delta Asia of being a “primary money laundering concern” with ties to North Korea’s WMD efforts. Washington then implemented financial sanctions against eight North Korean entities connected to the bank, AFP reported.

Bush also said it was “very important” for Pyongyang to resume multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations.

“There’s a six-party talk framework that is hopeful and positive for them. Requires them to make some difficult decisions and, of course, one of them is to get rid of the nuclear arsenal,” he said.

“But we’re more than willing and want the six-party talks to continue. I think the framework is a framework that can eventually yield to a peaceful settlement of the issue,” Bush said (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, Jan. 26).

North Korea said again today that it would not return to the six-nation talks until Washington lifts sanctions on its companies, the Associated Press reported.

“Concessions in a serious confrontation with U.S. imperialists mean ruin,” the official Rodong Sinmun newspaper announced in a commentary. “Our unchanged position is that we would respond to good intentions with good intentions and counter hard-line moves with ultra-hardline moves” (Kwang-Tae Kim, Associated Press/Khaleej Times, Jan. 27).

Meanwhile, North Korea is preparing to resume bilateral talks with Japan next week, Agence France-Presse reported today.

Officials are scheduled to meet on Feb. 4 in Beijing to discuss North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, its Cold War-era abductions of Japanese citizens and normalization of diplomatic ties, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The talks are expected to last several days, according to AFP (Agence France-Presse/Hindustan Times, Jan. 27).

Back to top

Ukraine Dismantles Final Strategic Bomber

Ukraine announced today that it has scrapped the last of its Soviet-era heavy bombers, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, Jan. 17).

U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst and defense officials from both countries watched the dismantlement of the Tu-22 Backfire bomber at the Poltava Air Force Base, RIA reported.

In line with the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) between the Soviet Union and the United States, Ukraine has relinquished or destroyed all its nuclear weapons and cut strategic offensive arms, according to RIA.

Four Soviet successor states — Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine — were left with significant nuclear weapons stockpiles and automatically became parties to the treaty when the Soviet Union collapsed (RIA Novosti, Jan. 27).

Back to top

Animals Possibly Mistaken for Intruders at CW Depot

Three intruders seen this week at the U.S. Army’s Pine Bluff Arsenal in Arkansas might actually simply have been wild animals, the Associated Press reported (see GSN, Jan. 26).

A security guard on patrol Tuesday night reported seeing three people inside a restricted area in which chemical weapons are stored. They ran away when he approached.

The area was well lit and the guard was between 70 and 165 feet away from the subjects when they fled, AP reported.

Subsequent searches uncovered no indications of human intruders, said Col. Brian Lindamood, Pine Bluff commander.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that the officer saw something, but it wasn’t human,” he said yesterday. “At this time I have no idea what it could be” (Daniel Connolly, Associated Press/ABC News, Jan. 26).

Back to top