International Response:  Scientific Journal Editors Call For Restraint

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

DENVER — A group of editors from leading scientific journals have called for restraint in publishing articles that might contain information useful to terrorists seeking to conduct biological attacks.

While there is a need for scientific research to be published and distributed, scientists and journal editors must also consider the need to prevent terrorists from acquiring information that could aid them in developing biological weapons, said a statement by the Journal Editors and Authors Group released here Saturday at annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

“There is information, that, although we cannot now capture it with lists or definitions, presents enough risks of use by terrorists that it should not be published,” said the group, consisting of editors from publications such as Science and Nature.  “How and by what processes it might be identified will continue to challenge us, because … it is also true that open publications brings benefits not only to public health but also in efforts to combat terrorism,” they added.

The group has called on editors from international scientific journals to modify, or even refuse to publish, papers that might contain information useful to terrorists.  Scientific papers, however, must also remain of a high quality and contain enough detail to allow for reproducibility — “a requirement for scientific progress,” the group said in its statement.  The statement is set to be published this week in several scientific journals, said Ronald Atlas, president of the American Society for Microbiology, who spoke at a press briefing.  Atlas said the editors would not act as censors.

There are no set qualifications as to what information would be too dangerous to block from publications, Atlas said.  He compared the situation to pornography — “You know it when you see it.”  Many editors and scientists involved in peer review boards have worked in biological defense and should have the background needed to recognize dangerous information, Atlas said.

Almost all of the papers published in the last several years that were considered by the group as they developed their statement would have still been published under the new mindset of restraint, Atlas said.  For example, more than 14,000 papers were submitted to journals published by the ASM between 2001 and 2002, according to an ASM press release.  Out of those, 224 dealt with “select agents” — biological agents subject to new U.S. regulations because of their potential threat.  Of those 224 articles, only two raised security concerns.  The articles were modified and are now set to be published, Atlas said.

One of the two papers was modified to have the rhetoric in its introduction, describing the dangerousness of the pathogen being studied, toned down, Atlas said.  In addition, information in the paper that described how the pathogen could be made more dangerous was removed, he added.  The authors of the two papers were not angered by the modifications, Atlas said.

Even some articles that raised public concerns when released would still deserve to be published with new security considerations, Atlas said.  One such article was a paper published in July of last year that explained how scientists at the State University of New York at Stony Brook was able to recreate the polio virus (see GSN, July 12, 2002).  The Los Angeles Times reported at the time that a number of scientists criticized the paper’s publication, calling it irresponsible.  Atlas Saturday defended the paper’s publication, saying it was considered at the time to have no new information and posed little security risk.

There are types of articles that should be blocked outright from being published and made widely available, Atlas said.  For example, there is no need to release information on how to weaponize anthrax, he said.

The group developed their statement in a series of meetings held last month.  The National Academy of Sciences, at the ASM’s request, held a meeting Jan. 9 with journal editors to consider the balance of open publication with security concerns (see GSN, Jan. 10).  On Jan. 10, the ASM hosted a meeting of journal editors, scientists and representatives from various U.S. agencies, such as the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to determine what measures journals could take to prevent terrorists from obtaining useful information.

Although representatives from U.S. agencies took part in the discussions leading to the creation of the group’s statement, there has been no request from the government to become involved in the peer review process, Atlas said.  Donald Kennedy, editor of Science, said he doubted any type of legislation on the issue would be proposed, noting that attitudes of the U.S. officials present at the discussions leading to the statement’s creation.

Back to top

U.S. Response:  Overuse Makes Cipro Less Effective Against Illness

The antibiotic Cipro, most famously used during the 2001 anthrax attacks, is becoming increasingly weak in treating infections because of dangerous overuse, according to a study published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association (see GSN, Oct. 26, 2001).

The study was conducted on patients with sicknesses such as respiratory and urinary infections, and the results of the study do not mean that Cipro has become less effective in treating anthrax, the Associated Press reported.

Researchers studied the effects of fluoroquinolone antibiotics, which include Cipro, on patients in 43 states and Washington from 1994 to 2000.

In 1994, Cipro was 86 percent effective against bacteria samples.  In 2000, however, Cipro was effective against 76 percent of bacteria samples.

“More judicious use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics will be necessary to limit this downward trend,” according to the study, which was headed by Melinda Neuhauser of the University of Houston.  The study said that doctors are now prescribing Cipro for common sicknesses (Associated Press/Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19).

Back to top

Anthrax:  Victim’s Widow Files $50 Million Claim From U.S. Army

The widow of the first person to die in the 2001 U.S. anthrax attacks has filed a $50 million claim against the U.S. Army, alleging that poor security at Maryland’s Fort Detrick research center permitted someone to steal the anthrax that killed Robert Stevens in Florida (see GSN, Feb. 3).

Stevens was the first of five fatalities in Florida, Connecticut, New York and Washington after anthrax-laden letters were processed and delivered by the U.S. Postal Service.

Stevens’ widow, Maureen Stevens, is trying to get more information about his death, including an autopsy report, and is seeking a financial settlement, her attorney Richard Schuler said Friday.  She has been frustrated by the federal investigation into Stevens’ death, Schuler said.

“There have been no arrests.  There’s been no information given to her, no indication that the investigation is progressing,” Schuler said.

AMI Building Deal

In a measure approved by Congress Thursday, the federal government would buy and clean up the building where Stevens worked as a photo editor for American Media Inc., publisher of tabloid newspapers, including the National Enquirer.

The arrangement calls for the United States to purchase the building for $1, and then assume all the clean-up costs, estimated at $7 million to $20 million (Kathy Bushouse, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Feb. 16).

Back to top

Smallpox:  U.S. Military Vaccine Program Running Well, Official Says

The Pentagon has immunized “well over” 100,000 military personnel with the smallpox vaccine and only three have developed serious reactions, Col. John Grabenstein, deputy director for military vaccines, said yesterday (see GSN, Dec. 20, 2002).

“Sick leave is rare and short … and just about everything is occurring at rates lower than historically predicted,” Grabenstein told a meeting at the U.S. Institute of Medicine.

Two soldiers developed encephalitis, an inflammation of the brain, and an airman was diagnosed with myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart.  All three have recovered fully, Grabenstein said.

The success of the military might not be easy to replicate in the civilian world, the Los Angeles Times reported.  U.S. health officials originally wanted to immunize 500,000 civilian medical personnel by the end of February, but as of Tuesday 1,043 health workers had received the vaccination, according to the Times (see GSN, Feb. 13).

Tens of thousands of military personnel have developed fevers, malaise and swollen lymph nodes after their immunizations and about 12 of every 1,000 people vaccinated have developed rashes, according to Grabenstein.

“There has been a rash of rashes,” he said.

Military personnel, however, have access to free health care and many civilian health workers are worried about compensation and the cost of treatment if they fall sick.

Some state health officials at the meeting, however, said that the program is going well.  In New Jersey, 98 health care workers have received the immunization, according to Eddy Bresnitz, the state’s epidemiologist.

“Clearly, we have the capability now of responding” to a smallpox attack, Bresnitz said.

U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) yesterday introduced legislation to compensate those who are sickened by the vaccine, the Times reported.  The legislation would also direct U.S. funding to aid states’ in the immunization program (Vicki Kemper, Los Angeles Times, Feb. 14).

Joe Henderson, associate director of terrorism preparedness and response at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said he expects participation in the program to increase rapidly in coming weeks.  Only Michigan has opted out of the program as a state, choosing to wait until compensation issues are resolved, Henderson said (Randolph Schmid, Associated Press/Boston Globe, Feb. 14).

New York, Los Angeles, Washington and 45 states will most likely have begun their immunization programs by Feb. 21, Henderson said (Maggie Fox, Reuters, Feb. 14).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP