Specialists are questioning the feasibility of three U.S. factories being built to rapidly turn out drugs needed after an attack or disaster, Nature reports.
Certain analysts argued that few useful antidotes are currently available for responding to the types of biological and chemical events envisioned by the production facilities under preparation in Texas, North Carolina and Maryland, the journal reported on Tuesday. Observers also cast doubt on the utility of next-generation smallpox vaccines, as well as other drugs that may be produced at the so-called Centers for Innovation in Advanced Development and Manufacturing.
The United States is relatively unlikely to face a chemical or biological strike for which the factories would prove useful, argued Richard Ebright, a molecular biologist with Rutgers University. The Texas plant is slated to begin generating its first vaccine in the middle of this year, and federal officials plan in the next quarter-century to spend up to $2 billion on medical treatments from that single facility.
Philip Russell, a former biodefense adviser for the George W. Bush administration, suggested the United States should have built just one such production site for civilian and military needs, in line with a 2008 recommendation by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
“Rather than one good operation that meets the government’s needs, we got three operations that spread the money around,” Russell said of the $440 million initiative, launched in 2012 by the Health and Human Services Department.
The current plan’s backers, meanwhile, argued that operating several manufacturing plants would provide a fallback if one is compromised by a strike or release of hazardous material.
In addition to the three sites overseen by Health and Human Services, the Defense Department is constructing a $136 million factory in Florida to generate smaller quantities of biodefense products for armed-forces use. That site is expected to operate at an annual cost of $20 million following its scheduled launch in 2015.
What We're Following See More »
"Like Donald Trump himself, the Trump campaign’s new national finance chairman has a long history of contributing to Democrats—including Hillary Clinton. Private investor Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s new campaign fundraising guru, has contributed more than $120,000" to candidates since 1995, about half of which has gone to Democrats.
Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."
The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"
An aide to Mitt Romney confirmed to the Washington Post that the 2102 GOP nominee will not attend the Republican convention this year. He joins the two living Republican presidents, George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush, as well as 2008 nominee John McCain in skipping the event. Even among living Republican nominees, that leaves only Bob Dole who could conceivably show up. Dole did say in January that he'd prefer Trump to Ted Cruz, but his age (92) could keep him from attending.