Reclassifying bioterrorism risk: Are we preparing for the proper pathogens?

Abstract

Existing classifications of potential biological weapons, acknowledge only limited important parameters of biological weapon potential. Certain pathogen factors would further influence the outcome of a potential attack in context with social and political aspects of the time and space of the attack. The importance of these factors was investigated through various attack scenarios that have been developed by the authors, and an individual score for each of these factors was calculated, based on the overall effect their variation had in the scenario outcome. A new classification score for potential biological weapons was subsequently developed, one, which drastically alters the perception of risk for certain pathogens, such as filoviruses and anthrax. This frame further allows for more accurate evaluation of the bioweapon potential of agents such as avian flu. Recognition of intervening factors and proper assessment of the actual risk might augment in proper distribution of interest and funds on relevant medical research.

Identification of Highly Pathogenic Microorganisms by Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization–Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry: Results of an Interlaboratory Ring Trial

“…tularensis (type A), Yersinia pestis, species of the Brucella melitensis group, Burkholderia mallei, and Burkholderia pseudomallei. HPB have the potential to be used in bioterrorist attacks (2,3). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, Atlanta, GA) have classified B. anthracis, F. tularensis, and Y. pestis as category A and Brucella species, B. mallei, B. pseudomallei, and Coxiella burnetii as category B, comprising the main pathogens of concern for use in bioterrorist attacks (4).…”

Development of a Comparative Risk Ranking System for Agents Posing a Bioterrorism Threat to Human or Animal Populations

“…Furthermore, 51 measures describing 28 criteria allow a more comprehensive description of risk by consideration of numerous aspects, compared to systems outlining RISK RANKING SYSTEM FOR BIOTERRORISM AGENTS only a smaller number of criteria. 5,13,18,[28][29][30] Other risk ranking systems have chosen to tackle the complex topic of ranking highly pathogenic biological agents by different methods-for example, a probabilistic decision tree approach. 31,32 The present system is most suitable for ranking highly pathogenic agents since pathogens that can be found naturally in human and animal populations in high prevalence and that cause simultaneously no symptoms or only mild disease might be ranged higher in probability due to elevated scores (eg, in the accessibility category).…”

Benefits of a European Project on Diagnostics of Highly Pathogenic Agents and Assessment of Potential “Dual Use” Issues

“…Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis , or Francisella tularensis , and risk group 4 viruses, e.g. haemorrhagic fever viruses, could cause severe diseases in humans and animals and are suspected to be used in bioterrorism attacks (1–7). Although there are various endemic areas in Europe for some of these zoonotic agents causing outbreaks, many questions about the epidemiology and ecology of these bacteria still remain open.…”