Diary Prequel Package — page 282

ya uss the NSABB typical Laurie Garrett. Also, I wonder what Phil Boffey is thinking. He was skeptical of me on our phone conversations when I said that he went too far with his alarmist Editorial in the NY Times on "Engineered Doomsday". He sort of rebuked me saying that the NSABB was a Board of "Top Scientists" and how could I be so at odds with them. I could not tell him at the time that they had completely mis-read the manuscript. Interesting and unprecedented situation. Also, on the first day of the meeting (March 29), the USG (mainly NSS) came out with the official DURC Policy that guides how we should approach DURC. April 5, 2012 - Appeared on Channel 8 "Capitol Insider" to discuss the NSABB situation. April 11, 2012 - Amazing shit. Mike Imperiale (mostly likely him) of the NSABB called a New Editor from Nature (Brendan Maher) and told him that he felt nervous about voting against publication of the manuscripts since he was afraid that I would not fund his grants if he did. I cannot believe the pettiness and cowardice of some people in Science. April 12, 2012 - I called Paul Berg is Stanford today to get his perspective since he was so involved in a leadership role in the Asilomar situation in the 1970s. We had a great conversation as we discussed the similarities and differences between then and now. I pointed out and he agreed that there is still today "scientific hubris" on the part of some people. Ron Fouchier showed that early on. Hopefully now he is "cured". However, Paul emphasized (as I feel) that the issue with bioterrorists is really a non-issue. He is concerned about sloppy science and public trust. He said that in the 1970s there was little concern about "germ warfare". I told him that that is the biggest difference from todfay when biodefense and biosecurity is a cottage interested with people (Ingesbly et al) and Agencies (DHS) who think about and work on this full time. In addition, there are the biodefense "Beltway Bandits". This "Biosecurity intimidation" matches the "Scientific Hubris". More amazing shit. Mike Osterholm wrote a letter to Amy Patterson with a cc to the entire NSABB membership excluding the ex officio members saying that he feels that the NSABB meeting was "rigged' by us to come up with the outcome that happened. I truly believe that he is traying to cover his ass that the NSABB completely missed the point of the transmissibility. This is similar to the Nature issue from yesterday. In addition, he disingenuously mentioned to Amy in the e-mail that he does not want this to be a public statement and does not want it to leak even though he copied about 50 people. Give me a break!!!! See letter below. NSABB letter final 41212.pdf