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 »
"According to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, the first national post-debate survey, 43 percent of registered voters said the Democratic candidate won, compared with 26 percent who opted for the Republican Party’s standard bearer. Her 6-point lead over Trump among likely voters is unchanged from our previous survey: Clinton still leads Trump 42 percent to 36 percent in the race for the White House, with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson taking 9 percent of the vote."
After a lighthearted beginning, Donald Trump's appearance at the Al Smith charity dinner in New York "took a tough turn as the crowd repeatedly booed the GOP nominee for his sharp-edged jokes about his rival Hillary Clinton."
Evan McMullin came out on top in a Emerson College poll of Utah with 31% of the vote. Donald Trump came in second with 27%, while Hillary Clinton took third with 24%. Gary Johnson received 5% of the vote in the survey.
A new Quinnipiac University poll finds Hillary Clinton leading Donald Trump by seven percentage points, 47%-40%. Trump’s “lead among men and white voters all but” vanished from the university’s early October poll. A new PPRI/Brookings survey shows a much bigger lead, with Clinton up 51%-36%. And an IBD/TIPP poll leans the other way, showing a virtual dead heat, with Trump taking 41% of the vote to Clinton’s 40% in a four-way matchup.