Biological Threats

The tabletop scenario exercises act as centerpieces to the project and draw on a variety of internationally-recognized threats and concerns regarding global health security. These include bioterrorism, protection of civilians and military forces, medical countermeasure stockpiling, risk communication, border closures, and emerging infectious diseases, among other topics.The Center aims to strengthen global health security by preparing NATO for biological attacks. The Boosting NATO Resilience to Biological Threats Project will first examine current NATO preparedness for biological threats. Next, the team will prepare and conduct a series of tabletop scenario exercises for NATO leadership, aiming to simulate outbreak response management and promote reflection on current levels of NATO preparedness for biological threats. Finally, the team will continue to engage with NATO as they strengthen preparedness against biological threats.

Ultimately, the project team would work towards the integration of resilience requirements for biological threats into NATO’s baseline requirements for civil preparedness. These resilience requirements would range from traditionally public health-oriented goals such as having systems of surveillance, detection and rapid response to infectious disease threats, to more defense-related goals such as having attribution capabilities in the event of a biological attack

ynthetic biology aims to make biology easier to engineer and to program. Thanks to advances in computing power, the ability to make long tracts of DNA, new tools like CRISPR that can be used to edit genomes, and the enthusiasm of young scientists and even amateurs who want to enter the field, synthetic biology is poised to change the future of medicine, agriculture, and manufacturing. Yet, while this new field promises vast opportunities and benefits, there are also risks. There are biosecurity risks that these technologies will be deliberately used for harm; safety risks to people and the environment; ethical and social considerations for how to apply these technologies; and there are risks to the competitiveness of nations that do not invest in these technologies that are likely to spur economic growth. This volume is dedicated to a discussion of what can be done to minimize risks and maximize the benefits of synthetic biology. Praise for Synthetic Biology: Safety, Security, and Promise “There can be no doubt that advances in the life sciences, including new insights and tools provided by synthetic biology, place us in a position to create exciting and novel products and approaches for patients in need. Gigi Gronvall describes that promise but also lays forth critical policy concerns that need to be addressed so that we don’t risk safety, security, or the competitiveness of US science.” – Margaret Hamburg, MD, Former FDA Commissioner and Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Medicine “Synthetic biology gives us tools that can help tackle global problems that affect humanity—but for that to happen, the risks of bioterror or bio-error need to be dealt with and managed, as well. Gronvall clearly describes the policy challenges that must be addressed and concludes with steps to enhance US leadership and competitiveness in the global bio-economy.” – J. Craig Venter, PhD, founder, chairman, and CEO of the J. Craig Venter Institute and co-founder, executive chairman and co-chief scientist of Synthetic Genomics, Inc. “For those of us working in the lab, it is important to embrace conversations with those who aren’t — including strategies for biological security, to create new synthetic biology products — with respect for facts about GMO risk/benefit balances, creating a culture of safe lab practices and norms worldwide. Gigi Gronvall dissects such issues at stake in synthetic biology and presents a pragmatic and scientifically responsive path forward for anyone in a position to influence, regulate, decide upon, or benefit from the science to follow.” – George Church, PhD, Professor of Genetics Harvard Medical School and Director of PersonalGenomes.org “Synthetic biology presents some of the greatest challenges and opportunities of the 21st Century. Gigi Gronvall navigates a path to follow, to make sure risks are addressed and opportunities are not squandered. It should be read by all concerned about national security.” – The Honorable Andrew Weber, head of global partnerships for Metabiota and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs

enter for Health Security publishes first working definition of Global Catastrophic Biological Risks

Authors say broadly shared definition and understanding of special category of biological risks could help focus collective efforts, direct resources where needed, and communicate more clearly about what these challenges are and how to prevent and respond to them

By Nick Alexopulos 

The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security has published the first working definition of Global Catastrophic Biological Risks (GCBRs) to place new focus on a special category of biological risks that have received too limited research and effort given their potential for harm to humanity.

The GCBR definition appears in a larger Center analysis of GCBR challenges in the July/August 2017 issue of Health Security, along with 10 companion GCBR commentary pieces written by a range of leading scientists and public health experts. Presented together as a special feature, the article and companion pieces endeavor to refine collective thinking on GCBRs and advance protections against them by initiating a conversation on the authors’ underlying concepts and assumptions.

In their article, Center authors define GCBRs as:

Those events in which biological agents—whether naturally emerging or reemerging, deliberately created and released, or laboratory engineered and escaped—could lead to sudden, extraordinary, widespread disaster beyond the collective capability of national and international governments and the private sector to control. If unchecked, GCBRs would lead to great suffering, loss of life, and sustained damage to national governments, international relationships, economies, societal stability, or global security.

Article and Commentaries:


 

Others have earlier identified nuclear war, climate change, and artificial intelligence as potential global catastrophic risks.

“We see GCBRs as a special category of [global catastrophic risks and] biological threats that deserve careful study and action to counter them, because of the extraordinary consequences they would have for humanity and because they are potentially tractable,” wrote the Center authors. “A broadly shared definition and understanding of these risks could help focus collective efforts, direct resources where needed, and communicate more clearly about what these challenges are and how to prevent and respond to them.”

Potential GCBRs include future flu pandemics, novel strains of contagious pathogens, biological accidents, threats to food supplies, or artificial organisms.

Coauthors of the article are Senior Associates Monica Schoch-Spana, PhD, Amesh Adalja, MD, Gigi Gronvall, PhD, Tara Kirk Sell, PhD, Jennifer B. Nuzzo, DrPH, Eric Toner, MD, and Crystal Watson, DrPH; Anita Cicero, JD, the Center’s deputy director; Analyst Diane Meyer, RN, MPH; Senior Analysts Sanjana Ravi, MPH, Matthew P. Shearer, MPH, and Matthew Watson; and Tom Inglesby, MD, the Center’s director.

Earlier this year, the Center launched a portfolio of GCBR projects to analyze and prevent specific risks, identify technical solutions, and foster a community of scientists and practitioners committed to building the field. The Center’s GCBR work is supported by the Open Philanthropy Project.

Read the article and commentaries . A quote from each commentary author is included below.

===

“Because we think that novel pathogens—especially those that could be engineered in the coming decades—pose a particularly acute global catastrophic risk, we are very interested in tools and systems that are most useful for mitigating those specific risks.”
— Jaime Yassif, Open Philanthropy Project

“[GCBRs] do not come with warning labels declaring them as such. If in the next 50 years there is a single biological event that kills 100 million people, there is a good chance the magnitude of that event will not be recognized from the start.”
— Marc Lipsitch, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

“As with many low-probability, high-consequence risks, the uncertainties involved in GCBRs are massive. But we would argue that high uncertainty brings with it high marginal value of information. Given the humanitarian stakes, even modest research efforts on GCBRs are of very high value.”
— Piers Millett and Andrew Snyder-Beattie, Future of Humanity Institute

“GCBRs quickly become local in an increasingly globalized world. Yet, the world is still unprepared—particularly if faced with an airborne pandemic with a high rate of spread and mortality.”
— Elizabeth Cameron, Nuclear Threat Initiative

“[The Center’s] definition considers secondary impacts of the biological event by explicitly emphasizing how certain biological events can destabilize national and international security.”
— Dylan George, B.Next, an IQT Lab

“As we prepare to confront global catastrophic biorisks, we must consider the possibility that new threats from the fungal kingdom will be the future wars.”
— Arturo Casadevall, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

“We believe there is a need for more studies of past experience with natural pandemics and pandemic threats, in order to elucidate the complex relationship among pathogen, host, and population immunity, as well environmental conditions that together shape the mortality impact.”
— Lone Simonsen, George Washington University, and Cecile Viboud, Fogarty International Center

“Emerging technologies bring us closer to creative solutions to the world’s pressing problems: food shortages, climate change, infectious disease. What are scientists’ responsibilities in the successful regulation of these powerful new methodologies?”
— Nancy Connell, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School

“The fragility of our global public health systems suggests the potential for otherwise manageable biological risks to become GCBRs. It will be critical to devise resilient systems to accommodate to a wide variety of eventualities and, wherever possible, prevent such events from occurring.”
— Megan Palmer, Bruce C. Tiu, Amy S. Weissenbach, and David A. Relman, Stanford University

“In thinking about GCBRs, we need to understand how a catastrophe could arise at the intersection of biological and social systems.”
— Maurizio Barbeschi, World Health Organization

===

About the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security:
The Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security works to protect people from epidemics and disasters and build resilient communities through innovative scholarship, engagement, and research that strengthens the organizations, systems, policies, and programs essential to preventing and responding to public health crises. The Center is part of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and is located in Baltimore, MD.

About Health Security:
Health Security is the bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. The Journal explores the issues posed by disease outbreaks and epidemics; natural disasters; biological, chemical, and nuclear accidents or deliberate threats; foodborne outbreaks; and other emergencies. It offers important insight into how to develop the systems needed to meet these challenges. The Journal is a key resource for practitioners in these fields, policymakers, scientific experts, and government officials.