Detection of Biological Agents Used for Terrorism: Are We Ready?

Abstract

Countering the use of biological agents (biothreats) requires a complex network of intelligence, detectors, laboratories, and the personnel and facilities to treat exposed individuals. In October 2009, 8 years after the mailing of letters containing Bacillus anthracis , the causative agent of anthrax, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism released an interim report asserting that the US is failing to address biological weapon proliferation and biological terrorism. The Commission Vice Chairman, Jim Talent, stated in that report that “It is only getting easier and cheaper to develop and use biological weapons—and our best defense is to mitigate the effects through faster, safer vaccines and therapeutics.” It is important to remember, however, that the decisions to administer vaccines and therapeutics require robust tools for the detection and identification of biological agents. The capabilities of current detection technology have been a limiting factor in creating a thorough process to deal with biological threats, and the matter is complicated even further by the almost infinite types of sample matrices and potential contaminants that confound analytical processes. Although technology and capabilities have improved since 2001, the majority of available devices are still based on chromatographic immunoassays, PCR, and ELISA. Newer, potentially faster and more sensitive technologies based on concepts such as nanowires, quantum dots, microcantilevers, and hand-held spectrometers are reported to be available or near availability, but most still require significant amounts of testing and validation under conditions replicating actual use. In this Q&A, 3 experts in the field of bioweapon detection answer questions about the current status of biothreat detection technology. Mark Hollis2 : Biothreat detection can happen in 2 ways: (1) people, animals, and/or plants fall ill in such a pattern that a biothreat can be suspected, and/or (2) the biothreat is identified via …