|
Details of the President's Project BioShield, a $6 billion proposal to fast-track bioagent vaccines and treatments, have yet to be revealed, but the announcement alone has spurred a gold rush among biotech companies eager to get involved in the 10-year research-and-development initiative. In one of several such meetings coming up, biotech companies gathered at a conference in Maryland Thursday to find out how they can get a piece of the biodefense pie, including the latest new potential plum.
Sponsored by AdvaMed, a medical technology trade association based in Washington, DC, the day focused on public-private partnerships in the fight against bioterrorism. Representatives of a handful of government agencies told the biotechs their participation is welcome as the government struggles to meet the challenge of chemical and biological threats to civilians and to soldiers on the battlefield.
"We have to have products so we can show the American people that we're part of biodefense," said Maria Giovanni, assistant director of Microbial Genomics and Advanced Technologies at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). This, she said, requires a culture shift to a more "product-oriented" organization.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is taking a two-pronged approach to biodefense research, Giovanni said. The agency will focus on basic research into microbes with bioterrorism potential. It will also focus on applied research to develop new and improved diagnostics, vaccines, adjuvants, therapies and research resources, such as genomics, proteomics, appropriate in vitro and animal models, validated assays and standardized reagents. The President's FY2004 budget proposes $1.625 billion for NIH biodefense research.
Since last year, NIAID has launched three initiatives to encourage partnerships among the government, academia and industry, Giovani said. NIAID's Cooperative Program for Biodefense supports research for early-stage product development. The agency's Biodefense Partnerships aim to identify products that already offer a "proven technical approach." NIAID's Small Business Biodefense Program offers research grants to small businesses to facilitate innovative research.
Looking ahead, NIAID will invest heavily in microbial sequencing centers, bioinformatics and proteomics, Giovanni added.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, which is leading the public health initiative to respond to chemical and biological attacks, is focusing on rapid detection, laboratory diagnosis, epidemiologic investigations and outbreak control measures, said Stephen Morse, associate director of the CDC's Science, Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Program.
With the aim of pushing the first line of biodefense down to the local level, the agency developed a national laboratory response network to quickly identify public health threats, link with law enforcement and respond to infectious disease outbreaks, Morse explained.
The CDC's extramural research priorities, Morse said, are enhanced detection systems, innovative surveillance systems, environmental sampling and pathogen detection systems, disinfection strategies, residual indicators of human immunity, innovative approaches to prophylaxis and treatment and assessment of aerosol risk for humans.
Biotechs will have several opportunities to learn more about partnering with government agencies to get their products into the biodefense pipeline. Next week, the TriValley Technology Enterprise Center, Livermore, Calif., hosts the Livermore LifeScience Conference 2003, and in March, the American Society for Microbiology will hold its biodefense research meeting in Baltimore.
Correction: The AdvaMed conference on February 6th was held in Washington, DC, not Maryland. The Scientist regrets this error.
References
| 1. | | [http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20030204/03/]
|
| | | T. Agres, "Bioshield outlined," The Scientist, February 4, 2003. Return to citation in text:
[1]
|
| |
| 2. | | [http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20021205/04/]
|
| | | T. Agres, "US biodefense budget," The Scientist, December 5, 2002. Return to citation in text:
[1]
|
| |
| 3. | | [http://advamed.org/]
|
| | | AdvaMed Return to citation in text:
[1]
|
| |
| 4. | | [http://www.niaid.nih.gov/default.htm]
|
| | | National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Return to citation in text:
[1]
|
| |
| 5. | | [http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20030115/02/]
|
| | | P. Brickley, "Vying for biodefense dollars," The Scientist, January 15, 2003. Return to citation in text:
[1]
|
| |
| 6. | | [http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20030204/04/]
|
| | | T. Agres, "Funding 2004," The Scientist, February 4, 2003. Return to citation in text:
[1]
|
| |
| 7. | | [http://www.cdc.gov/]
|
| | | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Return to citation in text:
[1]
|
| |
| 8. | | [http://www.trivalleytec.org/lifescience.htm]
|
| | | Livermore LifeScience Conference 2003, February 26, 2003 Return to citation in text:
[1]
|
| |
| 9. | | [http://www.asmbiodefense.org/]
|
| | | ASM Biodefense Meeting, March 9–12, 2003 Return to citation in text:
[1]
|
| |
|