A National Research Council expert panel is urging scientists to pursue new, reliable methods for distinguishing biological attacks from other outbreaks.
“In the event of a suspected biological attack, leaders would have questions about the identity and source of the biological threat,” says a report released on Friday by the influential federal advisory body. “Forensic science can help answer these questions, and it is essential that the answers be reliable.”
“Microbial forensics” is still a young field, though, and any effort to develop reliable analytical techniques may depend on new gene-sequencing technologies to assess vast numbers of microorganisms in advance, according to the authors.
“Until recently there have been few systematic efforts to collect and describe the microbes living in soil, seawater, freshwater lakes and streams, on plants, and even commensally in the guts or other surfaces of humans and other animals,” they wrote in the report.
The panel said that such “baseline” knowledge may prove crucial to determining whether viruses or bacteria in a disease outbreak are significantly different from what is normal for their environment. That information, in turn, could aid in assessing “whether the presence of that pathogen is natural or the result of a deliberate or inadvertent release,” according to the report.
The authors warned, though, that collecting such “metagenomic” data would require a major global effort.
“Formal international scientific collaborations will need to be created to ensure that technological resources are accessible to all nations, including developing countries that currently lack such resources, and that funding can be leveraged better,” the findings state. “This is a high-priority need for the research and funding agendas both inside and outside the United States that requires a coordinated effort on an international scale.”
The National Research Council expert panel prepared its findings in consultation with the British Royal Society, the Croatian Academy of Science and Arts and the International Union of Microbiological Societies.
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."