BiodefenseNew biodefense centers offer modernized approach, face criticism
A new facility at Texas A&M University is one of three new biodefense centers created by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to revolutionize the way fatal viruses are countered in the event of an emergency. The $286-million lab features mobile clean rooms that can be detached and moved to form different production or testing systems as the need arises. Not everyone agrees that the design and capabilities of the new center would offer the best response to biothreats.
A new facility at Texas A&M University is one of three new biodefense centers created by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to revolutionize the way fatal viruses are countered in the event of an emergency.
The $286-million lab, known as a Center for Innovation in Advanced Development and Manufacturing (CIADM) and which is situated in a rural warehouse, features mobile clean rooms that can be detached and moved to form different production or testing systems as the need arises. Additionally, separate sections of the facility can work independently, or be reconfigured into any number of combinations.
As Nature reports, Gerald Parker, director of the center, said regarding the flexibility of the site, “We need to be prepared for all hazards, not just the last one that hit us.”
HHS says it will invest $2-billion over the course of the next twenty-five years in countermeasures at the lab, including the resources to stockpile viruses for research and immunization purposes.
The CIADMs will also work on developing countermeasures to bioterror threats. Brett Giroir, executive vice-president of the Texas A&M Health Science Center, told the magazine, “We just hope the bad guys attack us with what we stockpiled.”
Others, however, have been critical of the design and capabilities of the CIADMs. Keith Wells, a consultant at BioProcess Technology Consultants, is critical of overworking countermeasures in advance, “They’re going to have a lot of challenges.” Nature also cites a 2008 report for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) which “Recommended the creation of a single development and manufacturing facility to serve both the military and civilians.”
Philip Russel, a retired Army major general, told the magazine, “Rather than one good operation that meets the government’s needs, we got three operations that spread the money around.”
CIADM supporters counter with the argument that three sites create flexibility and allow for backup procedures in the event of an emergency.
The facilities will be tested later this year when the government places its first orders for countermeasures to be developed.
