scholarly journals Reevaluating the Risk of Smallpox Reemergence

2020 ◽  
Vol 185 (7-8) ◽  
pp. e952-e957 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Raina MacIntyre

Abstract Introduction Smallpox, caused by variola virus, was eradicated in 1980, but remains a category A bioterrorism agent. A decade ago, smallpox ranked second after anthrax in a multifactorial risk priority scoring analysis of category A bioterrorism agents. However, advances in genetic engineering and synthetic biology, including published methods for synthesizing an Orthopoxvirus, require the assumptions of this scoring for smallpox and other category A agents to be reviewed. Materials and Methods The risk priority framework was reviewed and revised to account for the capability for creation of synthetic or engineered smallpox and other category A agents. Results The absolute score for all agents increased because of gene editing and synthetic biology capability, which was not present when the framework was developed more than a decade ago, although new treatments revised scores downward for smallpox, Ebola, and botulism. In the original framework, smallpox scored 0 for global availability, given the high security around known seed stocks of variola in two laboratories in the United States and Russia. Now, smallpox can be created using synthetic biology, raising the score for this criterion to 2. Other agents too, such as Ebola, score higher for availability, based on synthetic biology capability. When advances in synthetic biology and genetic engineering are considered, smallpox and anthrax are now equally ranked the highest category A bioterrorism agents for planning and preparedness. Conclusions Revision of a risk priority framework for category A bioterrorism agents shows that smallpox should be elevated in priority for preparedness planning, and that gene editing and synthetic biology raises the overall risk for all agents. The ranking of categories A, B, and C agents should also be revisited, as there is an endless possibility of engineered threats that may be more severe than any agent on the category A list.

Subject Regulation of gene-edited organisms. Significance The European Court of Justice (ECJ) last month ruled that new processes for altering the genetic structure of organisms should be subject to existing EU legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The move calls into question whether European researchers and businesses will be able to participate in the global race to exploit the rapidly evolving technology of gene editing. Impacts Innovation in gene editing will usher in a wide range of new crops in the United States and emerging economies over the next decade. This will further enhance the position of GM products in global agriculture (particularly for staples such as soybean, cotton and maize). The EU is unlikely to apply trade restrictions upon such products.


2021 ◽  
pp. bmjsrh-2021-201081
Author(s):  
Malia Maier ◽  
Goleen Samari ◽  
Jennifer Ostrowski ◽  
Clarisa Bencomo ◽  
Terry McGovern

ObjectiveA weak and politicised COVID-19 pandemic response in the United States (US) that failed to prioritise sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) overlaid longstanding SRHR inequities. In this study we investigated how COVID-19 affected SRHR service provision in the US during the first 6 months of the pandemic.MethodsWe used a multiphase, three-part, mixed method approach incorporating: (1) a comprehensive review of state-by-state emergency response policies that mapped state-level actions to protect or suspend SRHR services including abortion, (2) a survey of SRHR service providers (n=40) in a sample of 10 states that either protected or suspended services and (3) in-depth interviews (n=15) with SRHR service providers and advocacy organisations.ResultsTwenty-one states designated some or all SRHR services as essential and therefore exempt from emergency restrictions. Protections, however, varied by state and were not always comprehensive. Fourteen states acted to suspend abortion. Five cross-cutting themes surrounding COVID-19’s impact on SRHR services emerged across the survey and interviews: reductions in SRHR service provision; shifts in service utilisation; infrastructural impacts; the critical role of state and local governments; and exacerbation of SRHR inequities for certain groups.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates serious disruptions to the provision of SRHR care that exacerbated existing SRHR inequities. The presence or absence of policy protections for SRHR services had critical implications for providers and patients. Policymakers and service providers must prioritise and integrate SRHR into emergency preparedness planning and implementation, with earmarked funding and tailored service delivery for historically oppressed groups.


2021 ◽  
pp. 37-58
Author(s):  
R. Alexander Hamilton ◽  
Ruth Mampuys ◽  
S. E. Galaitsi ◽  
Aengus Collins ◽  
Ivan Istomin ◽  
...  

AbstractSynthetic biology promises to make biology easier to engineer (Endy 2005), enabling more people in less formal research settings to participate in modern biology. Leveraging advances in DNA sequencing and synthesis technologies, genetic assembly methods based on standard biological parts (e.g. BioBricks), and increasingly precise gene-editing tools (e.g. CRISPR), synthetic biology is helping increase the reliability of and accessibility to genetic engineering. Although potentially enabling tremendous opportunities for the advancement of the global bioeconomy, opening new avenues for the creation of health, wealth and environmental sustainability, the possibility of a more ‘democratic’ (widely accessible) bioengineering capability could equally yield new opportunities for accidental, unintended or deliberate misuse. Consequently, synthetic biology represents a quintessential ‘dual-use’ biotechnology – a technology with the capacity to enable significant benefits and risks (NRC 2004).


2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e7
Author(s):  
William Riley ◽  
Kailey Love ◽  
Jeffrey McCullough

The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated an acute blood shortage for medical transfusions, exacerbating an already tenuous blood supply system in the United States, contributing to the public health crisis, and raising deeper questions regarding emergency preparedness planning for ensuring blood availability. However, these issues around blood availability during the pandemic are related primarily to the decline in supply caused by reduced donations during the pandemic rather than increased demand for transfusion of patients with COVID-19. The challenges to ensure a safe blood supply during the pandemic will continue until a vaccine is developed, effective treatments are available, or the virus goes away. If this virus or a similar virus were capable of transmission through blood, it would have a catastrophic impact on the health care system, causing a future public health emergency that would jeopardize the national blood supply. In this article, we identify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on blood supply adequacy, discuss the public health implications, propose recovery strategies, and present recommendations for preparing for the next disruption in blood supply driven by a public health emergency. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print March 18, 2021: e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306157 )


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document