Attachment
Fauci Intelligence Community Release, p.10 · fauci_intel:exh:00003
Page text: p.10 · original PDF
- Date
- — (unknown precision)
- Type
- attachment · document
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLASSIFIED
victim for an extended period before being triggered.
For example, one panelist cited the possibility of a
stealth virus attack that could cripple a large portion
of people in their forties with severe arthritis,
concealing its hostile origin and leaving a country
with massive health and economic problems.
According to experts, the biotechnology underlying
the development of advanced biological agents is
likely to advance very rapidly, causing a diverse and
elusive threat spectrum. The resulting diversity of
new BW agents could enable such a broad range of
attack scenarios that it would be virtually impossible
to anticipate and defend against, they say. As a result,
there could be a considerable lag time in developing
effective biodefense measures.
However, effective countermeasures, once developed,
could be leveraged against a range of BW agents,
asserted attendees, citing current research aimed at
developing protocols for augmenting common
elements of the body's response to disease, rather
than treating individual diseases. Such treatments
could strengthen our defense against attacks by ABW
agents.
Implications for Warning
The experts emphasized that, because the processes,
techniques, equipment and know-how needed for
advanced bio agent development are dual use, it will
be extremely difficult to distinguish between
legitimate biological research activities and
production of advanced BW agents.
The panel contrasted the difficulty of detecting
advanced bioweapons with that of detecting nuclear
weapons, which has always had clear surveillance
and detection "observables," such as highly
enriched uranium or telltale production equipment.
Consequently, most panelists argued that a
qualitatively different relationship between the
government and life sciences communities might be
needed to most effectively grapple with the future
BW threat.
They cited the pace, breadth, and volume of the
evolving bioscience knowledge base, coupled with its
dual-use nature and the fact that most is publicly
available via electronic means and very hard to track,
as the driving forces for enhanced cooperation. Most
panelists agreed that the US life sciences research
community was more or less "over its Vietnam-era
distrust" of the national security establishment and
would be open to more collaboration.
One possibility, they argued, might be early
government assistance to life sciences community
efforts to develop its own "standards and norms"
intended to differentiate between "legitimate" and
"illegitimate" research, efforts recently initiated by
the US biological sciences community.
A more comprehensive vision articulated by one
panelist was for the bioscience community at large
to aid the government by acting as "a living sensor
web"--at international conferences, in university
labs, and through informal networks--to identify
and alert it to new technical advances with
weaponization potential. The workshop did not
discuss the legal or regulatory implications of any
such changes.