Diary Prequel Package — page 267

of concern (DURC) before the experiments are performed to evaluate the risk/benefit of even doing the experiments and to periodically look at the data to determine whether the data should be shared (presented or published) before one presents it or submits it to a journal. I think that there was major multifaceted failure here of NSABB covering their asses with the recommendation; researchers wanting attention for their work; failure of Amy Patterson's shop to get their job done over years; panic and hubris on the part of USG agencies who know nothing about science. I can go on and on. The problem that we are facing now is that we (USG) is being put in an untenable position of be involved in and associated with restricted (or as some say "censoring") scientific information when it is already out there. The process sets a bad precedent and it evokes all kinds of conspiracy theories and makes us look foolish. My choice at this point would be to admit that it is too late in the process - we should publish the unredacted papers and make this an "Asilomar moment" to make sure that we are not in this position again. Of note, on Jan. 7, 2012 a NY Times (written by Phil Boffey - unsigned - I know because he called me about it) came out with an inappropriately alarmist editorial entitled "Engineered Doomsday" calling into question the rationale for the research and asking for lock down of virus in BSL-4 and ultimate destruction of virus. He got most of his information from Ian Lipkin (my good friend) who feels strongly about this and was nice enough to tell me that he was going to do this. This editorial has only inflamed the hysteria and posturing. Jan. 15, 2012 - I still believe that there is no reason for the Journals insisting that the papers (redacted) need to be published by end of Jan/early Feb. Why not wait until this mess in openly discussed in an "Asilomar-like" setting. Jan. 16 - 21, 2012 - Major development pushed by my decision to be much more proactive in this process. Too many people were posturing and playing the "sound bite game" - Richard Ebright (who is a complete asshole), Mike Osterholm (with whom I am becoming progressively more disillusioned with due to his hysteria) and other well-meaning people who just like to comment, like D.A. Henderson. I never liked the fact that the journals (Science and Nature) were on a fast track to publish when we still did not know how we were going to develop a system to get the unredacted manuscripts only to "those who had a legitimate scientific need to know". We were getting significant pressure from the White House via HHS to make sure that there are no surprises with other such projects appearing. In addition, additional data were leaking out from Ron Fouchier's group having WH/HHS asking whether we should be shutting off their funding. I became concerned over the possibility that outside (non-scientific) influences would force us to set a bad precedent and stop funding these flu projects. Therefore, I took the bull by the horns and contacted Fouchier and strongly suggested that he and the flu scientists call a moratorium (60 days) on all work dealing with increased transmissibility and/or virulence of highly pathogenic H5N1 virus. At first, Fouchier was reluctant to do so since he felt that this would be an admission that what he did was dangerous and that he was backing down. He totally disagrees with the NSABB recommendations. In addition, I felt and told this to many in the press that we need to get more international involvement in this situation with WHO playing a major role. I felt that people were concerned that this was too much of a USA-centric situation and the USG