Diary Prequel Package — page 265

mutations followed by passaging in ferrets (the experimental methodology), then what is the signature of it so that health officials in the field could do better surveillance and also design better diagnostics, therapies and possibly vaccine. Both papers (with slight differences found that relatively few mutations (~5) followed by serial passage in ferrets led to virus that had better transmissibility and kept virulence. Kawaoka paper showed increased transmissibility but not maintenance of virulence, while Fouchier paper showed both. Papers submitted to Nature (Kawaoka) and Science (Fouchier). Program staff (NIAID), Fouchier and editors asked (because of possibility of dual use) the NSABB to examine the results and advise if it was OK to publish. Kawaoka was asked by NIAID to do the same. To everyone's surprise, the NSABB recommended that the papers be published with the conclusions, but with redaction of the key results, mutations and methodologies. I believe that this was group think and "cover your ass". Decision was to do this and provide a link in the paper whereby people (health officials, legitimate scientists, PHARMA, etc) who have a need to know can have access to the data. This was a precedent setting recommendation that was virtually impossible to ignore even though I disagreed with it since the complexity of influenza adaptability is extremely complex and it is unlikely that terrorists could replicate this work largely because it is unlikely that if that this model just simply predicts that it will maintain these characteristics if taken from ferret to human. Furthermore and more importantly, since the data had already been presented (by Fouchier) at an international meeting in Malta and the papers were reviewed by several reviewers and known by many, the data are already "out their" and would be virtually impossible to "restrict" the access to the full papers by a "vetting" mechanism of people who "apply" for the unredacted papers. Journal editors were disappointed (Bruce Alberts - Science and Phil Campbell - Nature) as were many flu scientists. However, we heard the usual hysteria from people like Ebert and Ingelsby who complained that the experiments should never have been done in the first place. Also, Mike Osterholm who is a member of the NSABB was practically hysterical that the NSABB recommendations should go out right away so that he could "answer all of the press calls" that he was getting. In reality, the only press that was agitating was - you guessed it - Laurie Garrett. Of note, Mike Osterholm is the Head of the CIERS group that subcontracted through the Mount Sinai group to Fouchier to conduct these experiments. Osterholm now (incredibly) says that he never thought that this situation would arise when he knew about the contract and actually was given updates through the CIERS on the actual data. Yet, he is the loudest one saying we should now lock down all experiments and treat this like BSL-4. Problem here is that as I predicted, the White House is now involved and they want the USG to examine all research that is ongoing and that is proposed for its dual use potential and to put restrictions on it if it has such potential. What they do not understand it that in the "discovery of science" you cannot always predict what will be dual use and the danger is that scientific work and importantly the normal open discourse of science will suffer because some uninformed people who live for "intrigue" are acting out their own agenda. More later. Dec.22, 2011 to Jan. 7, 2012 - Situation has escalated with wall-towall conference calls with HHS and a variety of WH folks about what to do. Major issues are that Bruce Alberts and Phil Campbell are willing to publish a redacted version of the papers in Science and Nature,