BioterrorismCongress debates BioShield funding while medical schools debate bioterrorism training

Just as researchers at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School urge medical schools across the United States to make bioterrorism preparedness part of their curricula, Congress is debating whether to continue spending on Project Bioshield, an initiative launched in 2004 to incentivize otherwise unprofitable research on treatments for rare outbreaks or bioterror agents such as anthrax and botulinum toxin.

Leonard Cole, director of the Rutgers’ Terror Medicine and Security Program, plans to insert subjects including a biochemistry-course lecture on nerve agents into the four-year curriculum. If crowds of people suddenly begin to shake and quiver, “frothing at the mouth … it would not be a smart thing for you to run and try to help,” he said, referencing the symptoms shown by hundreds of people in last year’s sarin-gas attacks in Syria.

While a bioterror attack is possible, the continued absence of such an attack in the United States since 2001 has convinced many lawmakers that the risk of a bioterror attack no longer justifies the investment. Global Security Newswire reports that Congress approved $5.6 billion for Project Bioshield for its first decade, allocating a steady $560 million in annual funding. Last year, Congress authorized the program to continue receiving the same amount of funding through fiscal 2018, though funding levels were left to be determined through the annual appropriations process instead of securing a “special reserved fund,” as was done with the first allocation. Considering the current fiscal environment, Health and Human Services Department (HHS) officials are unsure whether Project BioShield will maintain the level of funding sought. The program received $255 million in fiscal 2014 appropriations, and the Obama administration is seeking $415 million for fiscal 2015.

“The switch to annual appropriations may complicate (the HHS) long-term countermeasure development and acquisition planning,” analyst Frank Gottron said in a newly published Congressional Research Service report. “Some developers contend that an advance appropriation helps company management more favorably consider a potential countermeasure when weighing internal investment opportunity costs.”

Despite Congress’ perception of a diminishing bioterror risk, Cole insists that preparedness is paramount and training medical students is part of that preparedness. Defense One reports that over a decade ago, the Association of American Medical Colleges issued a call to U.S. medical schools urging them to incorporate into their curriculum subjects on chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear attacks. The recommendation is “still not yet broadly implemented,” Cole told GSN in a June telephone interview. “We want to inculcate in the culture of our medical school and our medical curriculum the notion that this is just part of what you have to learn to be prepared for. The kids, as they graduate, (now) really don’t have that sense.”