The Baltimore City Fire Department Hazmat team during a simulated terrorist attack training exercise in Baltimore, July 13, 2002. (AP Photo/Alex Dorgan-Ross)
Post your comments below
When government biodefense scientist Bruce Ivins took his own life last week, the 2001 anthrax case took another stunning turn. The FBI say it’s ready to reveal its evidence against Ivins this week. The case may close. Or it may not.
But behind all the drama is an intense debate over whether the U.S. — after seven years and more than $50 billion spent — is any better prepared for a bioterror attack. Critics say the U.S. remains far too vulnerable. Others say progress has been real, if slow — and that the threat is devilishly complex.
This hour, On Point: the anthrax investigation, and the biodefense debate.
You can join the conversation. Have you followed the anthrax case? What lessons should we draw from the new revelations? Are you confident that the U.S. government is prepared for another attack? Tell us what you think.
-Jane Clayson, guest host
* * *
Guests:
Joining us from Washington is Siobhan Gorman, intelligence and homeland security correspondent for The Wall Street Journal. Her piece in yesterday’s paper looked at the persistence of the bioterrorism threat.
From Minneapolis, we’re joined by Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He sits on the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. From 2001 to 2005, he was advisor to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Joining us from Annapolis, Maryland, is Tara O’Toole. She’s CEO and director of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and a professor of medicine and public health at the University of Pittsburgh. From 1993 to 1997, she served as Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment Safety and Health.
And with us from Washington is Alan Pearson, director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. In recent years, he’s worked at the Department of Homeland Security to streamline and refine the bioterror spending.
Tags: anthrax, bioterrorrism, national security, politics, terrorism, WMDs
prepared for another attack? given the 2001 attacks were targeted at those opposed to the patriot act, my guess is the government is ready to ramp up the fear at any moment. and if you want to talk about terror threats, devilishly complex indeed. so complex it seems futile to treat symtoms without addressing the agressive economic imperialist causes of terrorism.
Posted by Nate, on August 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am EDTi am listening to the biodefense debate and anthrax. I work in homeland security and the Sheriff’s office in Massachusetts,and I agree totally with the guests’ accessment that our surge capacity by healthcare providers to address the needs of mass casualties is pathetic. We have attempted to enter into MOU’s with local and large group of hospitals at the regional or corporate levels, with very little success in the last 4 years. Lack of funding, the continuous cuts in the DHS by Congress and the President, have left us totally unprepared. Dr O’Toole is very correct. The federal agencies can not, and will not come to our rescue in a mass casualty event. Having access to some level of security intel, I can definately say we as a country are not prepared for either anthrax a or any other form of bioterrorism. State budgets, testing laboratories, and watch agencies are non-functional at this time. The most expendable budgets to be cut have always been public health and emergency planning. It will always take a major event to get the sleeping giant awake.
Posted by Thomas Fantozzi, on August 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am EDTTerrorism: Is our government playing on our fear? Look what they done to one of they own, Dr Bruce Ivins. How can you trust a government that lies?
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
Posted by Gordy, on August 5th, 2008 at 10:56 am EDTBenjamin Franklin
Let’s have some financial disclosure.
Most of the experts on this program are getting government money — sometimes millions of dollars — for developing bioterror programs.
They have a strong financial incentive to exaggerate the threat of bioterrism, and that’s what I think they’re doing.
If you had a doctor from a pharmaceutical comapany telling us that everybody needs his drug, you’d want to remind your listeners that he had a conflict of interest.
Posted by Norman, on August 5th, 2008 at 8:52 pm EDTHere’s a good article on biological warfare from Boston Weekly.
THE DEVIL BY THE TAIL OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND
LOVE WEAPONIZED ANTHRAX
The Last Thing the World Needs is a Biological Arms Race, but Somebody Forgot to Tell Boston University
Brandon Keim
http://earthlab.net/journalism/bubiolab.pdf
As the article explains, we used to have an international biological weapons treaty, which prohibited all parties from making biological weapons. Unfortunately, the U.S. used one of the loopholes to develop our own biological weapons. The treaty allowed countries to create biological weapons, in order to supposedly figure out defenses against those weapons. So we started creating some of the most dangerous infectious diseases ever made, such as weaponized anthrax, vaccine resistant anthrax, and others.
Now we’ve given the world biological weapons. The first use of our own weapons was against us. It’s unlikely that weaponized anthrax would ever have been created if we hadn’t done it. But now that we’ve done it, everybody knows it can be done, and if there are any terrorists who want to attack us, they know it can be done.
Meanwhile, the government has taken money from real threats, like pandemic influenza, and moved it into bioweapons “research.”
Posted by Norman, on August 5th, 2008 at 9:08 pm EDTIt’s looking more and more like the anthrax attacks of 2001 were just another false-flag attack, like the Reichstag burning of 1933 that helped bring Hitler to power, or the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin non-incident. Most likely the neocons attacked us to move the country towards war with Iraq. Shame on them, and shame on us.
Posted by Zack, on August 5th, 2008 at 11:26 pm EDTOne of your callers was correct when he suggested that these scientists are fear mongering. It is just like the global warming issue. The glaciers have been melting for the last 10,000 years, thank goodness. Further, why is it that the Americans can not accept that they are so much dispised? True, your country is great, pregressive and a leader in so many ways but it CANNOT seem to stop being such a bully to the rest of the world. No wonder there is such a world wide backlash. We, in Canada, are the best boot lickers in the world. Who wouldn’t be when the “bear” next to us just needs to shuffle its big toe and we’re done.
Posted by Alec Simpson, on August 6th, 2008 at 1:30 am EDTI wish On Point produced a show on how we are rapidly losing our civil liberties under the pretext of fighting terrorism.
Both presidential candidates have both moved in that direction. It’s appalling.
On Point, please help us discuss this issue in the context of FISA, habeas corpus and the Patriot Act.
Posted by Maria, on August 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm EDTWe welcome comments from all of our listeners.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
These comments are moderated by On Point and WBUR, but you are solely responsible for the content of your comments. On Point and WBUR cannot verify the accuracy of comments posted here.
This site supports Gravatars.