BiodefenseBiodefense Panel welcomes key provision in defense authorization bill

Published 24 May 2016

In October 2015, the Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense found that insufficient federal coordination on strategy, budgeting, and policy; inadequate collaboration with other levels of government and the private sector; and lagging innovation in areas like biosurveillance and medical countermeasure development make the United States vulnerable to biological attacks and infectious disease outbreaks. The Panel welcomed the passing by the House of the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4909, which includes a provision addressing one of the Panel’s most important recommendations.

The Blue Ribbon Study Panel on Biodefense, a group which provides recommendations to improve defense against bioterrorism, naturally occurring pandemics, and accidental releases, has issued the following statement in response to the House passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, H.R. 4909, which includes a provision addressing one of the Panel’s most important recommendations:

“Our Panel identified an uncoordinated and nonstrategic federal approach to dealing with the biological threat,” said Senator Joe Lieberman, co-chair of the Panel. “Some $6 billion per year are being spent agency by individual agency. This defense authorization smartly directs the overhaul of this inefficient approach – and calls for a comprehensive and integrated federal strategy, the identification of shortfalls, and a much needed implementation plan. I am especially pleased to see animal health authorities included since animals are often carriers of infectious diseases and can themselves be targets of biological attacks.”

Governor Tom Ridge, also co-chair, stated, “Ebola and Zika are only the most recent outbreaks to reveal the strategic deficits in our approach to biodefense. The lack of comprehensive awareness of agency authorities and activities — and most especially capability gaps — has serious consequences. How else can we explain the Department of Homeland Security declaring Ebola a material threat in 2006, but the Department of Health and Human Services only making it a priority after an epidemic occurred? Along with the requirement for a national biodefense strategy, this bill looks to advance incentives to develop countermeasures (like vaccines and diagnostics) before these kinds of outbreaks spin out of control. While it doesn’t solve the whole problem, it goes a long way to help get ahead of these threats and save lives. I’d like to see the Senate support these provisions given the huge gap in our biodefense posture the House has recognized by passage of this measure.”

The Panel’s October 2015 report found that insufficient federal coordination on strategy, budgeting, and policy; inadequate collaboration with other levels of government and the private sector; and lagging innovation in areas like biosurveillance and medical countermeasure development make the United States vulnerable to biological attacks and infectious disease outbreaks. Recommendation 3 calls for a National Biodefense Strategy. The Panel testified before the House Armed Services Emerging Threats Subcommittee in February 2016.