词条 | Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
释义 |
The Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense is a panel of former high-ranking government officials that analyzes US capabilities and capacity to defend against biological threats. According to the Panel's mission statement, the organization was formed to "provide for a comprehensive assessment of the state of U.S. biodefense efforts, and to issue recommendations that will foster change." [1] The Panel is supported by donor organizations. Hudson Institute serves as the Panel's fiscal sponsor. Current donors include Open Philanthropy. Panel Members, Staff, and Ex OfficiosThe Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense is co-chaired by former Senator Joe Lieberman and Governor Tom Ridge.[2]
Sources:[3][2][4][5] BackgroundBetween 2001 and 2014, the U.S. spent around $80 billion on biodefense.[6] Beginning in fall 2014, the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense conducted meetings, interviews, and research. It studied the 2001 anthrax attacks and biodefense programs undertaken during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations.[7] In October 2015, the Panel released its recommendations to publicly and submitted them to Congress in the form of a report, A National Blueprint for Biodefense: Leadership and Major Reform Needed to Optimize Efforts. They concluded that the United States was not prepared to respond to a large scale biological event - naturally occurring, accidentally released, or intentionally introduced. As for the cause of the problem, the report said, "Simply put, the nation does not afford the biological threat the same level of attention as it does other threats."[7] A National Blueprint for BiodefenseThe Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense conducted a year-long study of how the U.S. should address biological threats. The study covered human-generated (i.e., terrorism, warfare, accidents) and naturally occurring biological threats. The study culminated in a report to the public and Congress released on October 28, 2015.[8] The group's report was titled A National Blueprint for Biodefense.[9] The report described many biological threats, including those posed by the Islamic State and Al Qaeda, as well as nation states, and "mishandling of lethal biological agents by the U.S. government," as reasons for making biodefense a high national priority.[7] This report contained 33 recommendations and over 80 specific action items associated with those recommendations.[9] The report proposed congressional oversight hearings to address the following issues:[10]
On September 18, 2018, President Donald Trump released the 2018 National Biodefense Strategy and signed a National Security Presidential Memorandum to direct the federal government to execute this strategy. Together, they will improve the federal government's readiness and response to human-generated and naturally occurring biological threats to the Nation. The Strategy was mandated by Congress and has five extensively detailed goals. It establishes a new cabinet-level committee chaired by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Security Advisor John Bolton said, "The Biodefense Steering Committee will monitor and coordinate implementation of the National Biodefense Strategy across 15 federal agencies and the intelligence community." The Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense commended the Trump Administration for creating the strategy in accordance with the Panel's third recommendation in its National Blueprint for Biodefense.[11] Identified problemsIn the Blueprint for Biodefense report, the Panel said that almost no urgency within the federal government for dealing with the risk of a biological event existed.[8] The report stated that the government does not appear to take events related to biodefense seriously enough. One member stated, "The tragic saga of the death of Thomas Eric Duncan from Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) serves as a perfect demonstration of the shambolic state of biodefense in the United States in late 2014."[6] Another estimated that the consequences of inaction on Panel recommendations would be that the report would serve as a "guidebook for placing blame."[8] The federal government has also failed to update its practices and procedures as they relate to biological threats. For example, there is a system within the National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration that would fast-track the approval of medical countermeasures in the event of a biological attack. However, during a hearing with the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Governor Tom Ridge stated that the fast-track process is obsolete. Page 52 of the report reads, "A systemic, risk averse culture has emerged that is stifling innovation. If this continues to evolve, progress on biodefense objectives will be curtained and the still nascent biodefence industry will have little incentive to participate."[8] Another example is the practice of stockpiling vaccines against a biological agent. This practice is now considered obsolete. Nation states and terrorist organizations are already able to "merge the toxic attributes of more than one agent." To replace vaccine stockpiles, the Panel recommended a "vaccines-on-demand approach."[8] Biological attributionThe Panel held a public meeting on October 3, 2017 about the biological attribution of crime, terrorism, and warfare. Biological attribution refers to the process of determining who and what was responsible for a biological attack. Perpetrators could be criminals, terrorists, or state actors. During this meeting, the Panel learned about the federal government's existing capabilities to determine the sources and characteristics of deadly pathogens.[12] The Panel has taken a particular interest in the National Bioforensics Analysis Center (NBFAC). In fiscal year 2013, the NBFAC supported more than 45 investigations of potential biological crimes.[13] Previously run by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Panel recommended that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) assume management of the NBFAC, as today, 100% of all specimens going into the facility come from the FBI. In 2018, DHS and the FBI signed a memorandum of agreement that transferred NBFAC management to the FBI. Budgeting for biodefense{{quote box|width = 21.5em |border = 1px |align = |bgcolor = #c6dbf7 |fontsize = 85% |title_bg = |title_fnt = |title = |quote = Myriad federal departments and agencies are responsible for defending against these threats. Referring to their activities as a federal biodefense enterprise suggests a coordinated interagency endeavor unified in achieving common goals, but this is not the reality that exists currently. America is more vulnerable today than it should be to a biological crisis of any scale. |salign = right |source = —Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense, February 2018 report[14] }} In its February 2018 report, Budget Reform for Biodefense: Integrated Budget Needed to Increase Return on Investment, the Panel noted increasing threats to the United States and its interests overseas, and determined that the U.S. government can no longer wait to commit federal funds to biodefense. Waiting is not in the best interest of the health of Americans nor the country's national security. The Panel released its report to the public and Congress in 2018.[15] One of the key budgeting issues identified by the Panel is that there all federal departments and many agencies have some biodefense responsibilities. Despite this multiplicity, there is not enough coordination. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), co-chair Senator Lieberman said, does not know how much the federal government spends on biodefense because "the sad fact is, more than two dozen agencies are working in silos across biodefense; that increases our vulnerabilities. Once we have a strategy and match that strategy with budget reforms ... that's the beginning of a much more effective biodefense national strategy." Economic impacts of a catastrophic outbreak could reach $1 trillion, Lieberman noted.[15] The report recommends that the OMB each year submit "an integrated budget request to Congress that outlines federal-wide biodefense spending, and how it is tied to mission objectives." In 2019, congressional Appropriations directed OMB to conduct a biodefense budget cross-cut that would inform the budget request, in accordance with one of the Panel's recommendations. While the report also asks Congress to create a bipartisan, bicameral Biodefense Working Group to come up with budgeting solutions,[16] Congress has yet to establish such a Group. The House of Representatives, however, has established a Biodefense Caucus. Large-scale national preparednessPanel members and experts agreed during a public Panel meeting in January 2018 that in order to respond effectively during a large-scale biological event due to a terrorist attack or natural disaster, the public and private sectors need to coordinate. The Panel also noted that obstacles exist that highlight the nation's vulnerabilities to such an event.[17] The Panel concluded that a comprehensive public health system that is able to respond before a biological disaster strikes is critical. In an op-ed in the Miami Herald on January 15, 2018, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala said that during a large biological event, "I know that the federal government would move resources to affected areas throughout the United States. But those resources are already too few, and the federal government does not respond quickly to multiple locations in distress."[17] National biological disaster hospital systemA "stratified biodefense hospital system would provide the United States with a protective shield in the event the country experiences a man-made or natural biological catastrophe," speakers told members of the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense in a January 2018 public meeting, according to Homeland Preparedness News. The public hearing occurred during the same week that the Senate began holding hearings on the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), which was due for reauthorization in September 2018. Information sharing across state, local, tribal, and territorial (SLTT) governments was another large theme during the public meeting. In its December 2016 Biodefense Indicators report, the Panel recommended that the federal government "redouble its efforts to share information with SLTT governments"[18] and described variuos action items to do so. RecommendationsThe National Blueprint for Biodefense, laid out 33 recommendations and associated action items. The primary actions the U.S. government should take, according to the Panel's report, are the following:[6]
One of the Panel's major recommendations was to place responsibility for biodefense leadership into the hands of the Office of the Vice President of the United States. By doing so, biodefense would have "the ear of the president and the ability to coordinate budgets and plans across agencies." In such a scenario, the White House Biodefense Coordination Council would execute the day-to-day work, Senator Lieberman said during testimony in front of the House Homeland Security Committee.[8] By making the Vice President responsible for biodefense, it would "transcend the bureaucratic and budgetary rivalries of various agencies in order to create an effective platform for dealing with biological attacks."[7] The report also suggested that the government merge duplicate processes by including all biological threats, not just those from terrorism, into a national strategy. For example, the "OneHealth approach" is one recommendation made by the Panel that would merge strategies for dealing with human and animal health biodefense programs.[8] The Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense also called for the new Innovation Funds at the National Institutes of Health, and for ten percent of those funds to be dedicated to building technology that would allow multiple antigens in a countermeasure to be delivered from a single platform. Similarly, the Panel called for ten percent of funds from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) for the same purpose.[8] Dr. George told Homeland Prep News that in order for the government's defense against a biological attack to be sufficient, a new comprehensive program needs to be developed. The programs and activities under a new approach would need to be "coordinated, collaborative and innovative."[9] The report recommends that all types of biological threats should be addressed by a single comprehensive strategy. By different types, they meant biological warfare, bioterrorism, naturally occurring deadly disease, and accidental release.[6] Other ReportsSince the release of its National Blueprint for Biodefense, the Panel has released four other reports: Biodefense Indicators: One Year Later, Events Outpacing Federal Efforts to Defend the Nation (December 2016); Defense of Animal Agriculture (October 2017); and Budget Reform for Biodefense: Integrated Budget Needed to Increase Return on Investment, and Holding The Line On Biodefense: State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Reinforcements Needed (October 2018). In Holding the Line on Biodefense, the Panel made eight recommendations to improve the U.S. biodefense system. One of the recommendations is to distribute funds to various levels of government before, not after, a biological event, in order to emphasize preparedness. Senator Lieberman believes that a biological attack is imminent.[19] ActivitiesThe Panel's bipartisan activities include meetings, research, issuing reports, testifying before Congress, and meeting with officials at the White House. Dr. George said that that the Panel would stay engaged with Congress to help it understand and make the improvements that the Panel recommended.[9] Previously, the Panel teamed up with the Alliance for Biosecurity, and Trust for America's Health to conduct a survey of Americans' thoughts about biosecurity. According to the Alliance, Americans are concerned about biological threats.[20] In September 2016, the Open Philanthropy Project gave the panel a $1.3 million grant in support of the panel's influential leadership role in the evaluation of the nation's biodefense systems. Tom Ridge said, "It is troubling that we still do not have a comprehensive approach to preparing for and responding to biological events. That is why this grant from Open Philanthropy is so critical. It will allow us to push forward the recommendations detailed in our National Blueprint and seek to put them into action."[21] In February 2018, the Open Philanthropy Project gave the Panel another grant for $2.5 million to advance biodefense leadership and reduce catastrophic biological risk. “Estimates show that as many as 100 million people died in 1918 from pandemic influenza,” said Senator Joe Lieberman. “That was before we were traveling as often as we do today, and well before commerce became globalized. Since then, the world has gotten smaller, but the threat has not. Far more needs to be done to prepare for another catastrophic biological event – whether manmade or from nature. With this in mind, the support we receive today from Open Philanthropy will allow us to further advance the recommendations the Panel identified in our National Blueprint for Biodefense and subsequent reports. We thank Open Philanthropy for their leadership and support on this critical issue.” In December 2018, President Trump signed the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (H.R. 2), also known as The Farm Bill. The legislation addressed Panel recommendations to defend U.S. food and agriculture. The new law creates a National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program and a National Animal Vaccine and Veterinary Countermeasures Bank, and increases federal funding to stockpile medical countermeasures for animals.[22] See also{{Portal|Biological warfare}}
References1. ^http://www.biodefensestudy.org/mission-our-team 2. ^1 {{Cite web|url=http://www.givewell.org/labs/causes/biosecurity/study-panel-biodefense|title=Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense Grant {{!}} GiveWell|website=GiveWell|access-date=2016-05-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160514141356/http://www.givewell.org/labs/causes/biosecurity/study-panel-biodefense#|archive-date=2016-05-14|dead-url=yes|df=}} 3. ^{{Cite web|url=https://vitalrecord.tamhsc.edu/parker-appointed-to-blue-ribbon-panel-on-biodefense/|title=Parker appointed to Blue Ribbon Panel on Biodefense - Vital Record|date=2015-01-27|website=Vital Record|language=en-US|access-date=2016-05-20}} 4. ^{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/Stockpile/2016-FEB-4/Carlin%20Ellen.pdf|title=The Nation's Medical Countermeasure Stockpile: Opportunities to Improve the Sustainability of the CDC Strategic National Stockpile, A Workshop|last=Carlin|first=Ellen P.|date=2016-02-05|website=Institute of Medicine|publisher=National Academy of Sciences|access-date=2016-05-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160820114628/https://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/Stockpile/2016-FEB-4/Carlin%20Ellen.pdf#|archive-date=2016-08-20|dead-url=yes|df=}} 5. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.c-span.org/person/?robertkadlec|title=Robert Kadlec M.D. {{!}} C-SPAN.org|website=www.c-span.org|access-date=2016-06-24}} 6. ^1 2 3 {{Cite web|url=https://www.justsecurity.org/29521/improving-recommendations-biodefense-report/|title=Improving the Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Biodefense Report|date=2016-02-25|website=Just Security|access-date=2016-05-20}} 7. ^1 2 3 {{Cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/10/28/blue-ribbon-panel-report-united-states-lacking-in-biodefense/|title=Blue Ribbon Panel report: United States lacking in biodefense|last=Gibbons-Neff|first=Thomas|date=2015-10-28|website=Washington Post|access-date=2016-05-20}} 8. ^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 {{Cite web|url=http://securitydebrief.com/2015/11/09/biodefense-blue-ribbon-panel-report-sends-strong-messages-is-anyone-listening/|title=Biodefense Blue Ribbon Panel Report Sends Strong Messages – Is Anyone Listening?|website=Security Debrief|access-date=2016-05-20}} 9. ^1 2 3 {{Cite web|url=https://homelandprepnews.com/biological-threats/bioterrorism/18391-qa-with-co-director-of-the-blue-ribbon-study-panel-on-biodefense/|title=Q&A with co-director of the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense - Homeland Preparedness News|date=2016-03-17|website=Homeland Preparedness News|language=en-US|access-date=2016-05-20}} 10. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.biodefensestudy.org/SiteAssets/1425-2139_BRSP_Report_100815b[1][6].pdf|title=A National Blueprint for Biodefense|last=|first=|date=|website=biodefensestudy.org|publisher=Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense|pages=64–67|access-date=2016-06-24}} 11. ^{{Cite news|url=https://homelandprepnews.com/stories/30509-white-house-authorizes-national-biodefense-strategy-hhs-to-take-governance-lead/|title=White House authorizes national biodefense strategy; HHS to take governance lead - Homeland Preparedness News|date=2018-09-18|work=Homeland Preparedness News|access-date=2018-11-30|language=en-US}} 12. ^{{Cite news|url=https://homelandprepnews.com/featured/24745-pressing-multiplying-biodefense-issues-plague-u-s-experts-say/|title=Pressing, multiplying biodefense issues plague U.S., experts say|last=Riley|first=Kim|date=2017-10-16|work=Homeland Preparedness News|access-date=2017-10-25|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|language=en-US}} 13. ^https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/National%20Biodefense%20Analysis%20and%20Countermeasures%20Center-NBACC-060914_2.pdf 14. ^http://www.biodefensestudy.org/news-item/blue-ribbon-study-panel-on-biodefense-calls-for-strategic-budgeting-tied-to-new-national-biodefense- 15. ^1 {{Cite news|url=https://homelandprepnews.com/countermeasures/27042-blue-ribbon-study-panel-biodefense-warns-congress-delaying-federal-funds-tied-comprehensive-strategy/|title=Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense warns Congress against delaying federal funds tied to comprehensive strategy|last=Riley|first=Kim|date=2018-02-28|work=Homeland Preparedness News|access-date=2018-03-30|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|language=en-US}} 16. ^{{Cite web|url=http://www.biodefensestudy.org/news-item/blue-ribbon-study-panel-on-biodefense-calls-for-strategic-budgeting-tied-to-new-national-biodefense-|title=Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense Calls for Strategic Budgeting Tied to New National Biodefense Strategy|last=|first=|date=2018-02-01|website=Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2018-03-30}} 17. ^1 {{Cite news|url=https://homelandprepnews.com/stories/26246-biodefense-panel-convenes-address-state-local-cooperation-midst-major-health-disasters/|title=Biodefense panel convenes to address state and local cooperation in midst of major health disasters|last=Galford|first=Chris|date=2018-01-17|work=Homeland Preparedness News|access-date=2018-02-12|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|language=en-US}} 18. ^{{Cite news|url=https://homelandprepnews.com/countermeasures/26311-national-disaster-health-care-system-needed-experts-tell-blue-ribbon-study-panel-biodefense/|title=National disaster health care system needed, experts tell Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense|last=Riley|first=Kim|date=2018-01-19|work=Homeland Preparedness News|access-date=2018-02-12|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|language=en-US}} 19. ^{{Cite news|url=https://homelandprepnews.com/stories/30850-blue-ribbon-study-panel-on-biodefense-recommends-local-level-prep-to-preempt-biothreats/|title=Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense recommends local-level prep to preempt biothreats - Homeland Preparedness News|last=|first=|date=2018-10-11|work=Homeland Preparedness News|access-date=2018-10-17|language=en-US}} 20. ^{{Cite web|url=http://media.wix.com/ugd/495d79_dd18f5bc60c44494bf6978b065ebd919.pdf|title=Survey Results Show Americans Are Concerned About Biosecurity Threats And Believe The Government Should Invest More In Preparedness (Press release)|last=|first=|date=2016-04-20|website=media.wix.com|publisher=Alliance for Biosecurity and Trust for America's Health|access-date=2016-05-20}} 21. ^{{Cite news|url=http://www.hstoday.us/single-article/blue-ribbon-biodefense-study-panel-receives-major-funding-award/e10df1887183f38c332eed99cda6adb2.html|title=Blue Ribbon Biodefense Study Panel Receives Major Funding Award|last=|first=|date=2016-09-21|work=Homeland Security Today|access-date=2016-10-03|via=}} 22. ^{{Cite web|url=https://homelandprepnews.com/stories/31880-blue-ribbon-panel-lauds-congress-for-passage-of-farm-bill-with-provisions-to-protect-food-supply/|title=Blue Ribbon panel lauds Congress for passage of farm bill with provisions to protect food supply|last=|first=|last2=|date=2018-12-26|website=Homeland Preparedness News|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2019-01-02|last3=2018}} External links
4 : Biological warfare|Bioterrorism|Public inquiries in the United States|National security of the United States |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识,基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识,是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。