ABSTRACT Biological events—including outbreaks and pandemics, biological-weapons use, and accidental laboratory release—have the potential to be extremely disruptive. The ability to accurately investigate, identify the origins of, and attribute these events is critical for deterring deliberate events and implementing interventions to prevent future natural or accidental events. However, historical examples of biological-event attribution and origins investigations illustrate significant gaps in processes, from technical capabilities to communications, and have not resulted in conclusive consensus among decision makers, the public, and scientists. The research described in this article aimed to assess attitudes and expectations of a broad range of stakeholders regarding investigations and the evidence they generated for biological attribution. The authors interviewed 41 experts in disciplines related to attribution and investigations and then analyzed the interview content using a mixed-methods approach. Interviews generated a list of factors to consider when planning or conducting investigations. Among the interviewees, opinions varied by field of study on how to analyze the biological samples, how to communicate the results of the investigation, and how feasible it would be to reach a conclusion about who was responsible. Participant opinions varied less with regard to requirements, protocols, and guidelines thought to be important to maintaining confidence in the technical details of an investigation and the evidence it produces. Findings from this study can inform planning for future events.
Read full abstract