Tag: 爱上海XD

HHS offers plan for defense against biological threats

HHS offers plan for defense against biological threats

first_imgApr 25, 2007 (CIDRAP News) – The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently unveiled its plan for developing and buying medical countermeasures against a range of biological, chemical, and other threats, with new anthrax and smallpox vaccines among the near-term priorities.The 21-page implementation plan, released Apr 20 on the HHS Web site and in the Federal Register, details how the agency will acquire countermeasures against 14 threats on its priority list, which include nine category A biological agents, two category B biological agents, typhus, certain volatile nerve agents, and radiological and nuclear agents.HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt said in an Apr 18 press release that since the Sep 11 terrorist attacks the United States has made significant progress in securing medical countermeasures against a number of threats, but much more work remains.”This plan lays out our path forward in the coming years and will take advantage of our new authorities under the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act to move forward with Project BioShield,” he said.Project BioShield, a $5.6 billion program, was established in 2004 to speed the development of medical treatments for the effects of biological and other unconventional weapons. But major drug companies showed little interest in the program. In passing the All-Hazards Preparedness Act last December, Congress tried to revitalize the program by authorizing partial payments to companies working under BioShield contracts before final delivery of their products.The HHS plan identifies acquisitions the agency will make under the remaining 5 years of Project BioShield, a 10-year program, as well as those the agency will pursue through fiscal year 2023.The report says the maturity of the product development pipeline and estimated costs guided HHS decisions and placement of items on near-term, mid-term, and long-term development lists. The agency focused on the countermeasures that offer the greatest opportunity to improve emergency preparedness across a range of threats.Priority is placed on countermeasures that involve “post-event prophylaxis” or postexposure treatment, the HHS report said. Though single treatments are appropriate for some of the biological threats—a “one bug, one drug” approach—HHS aid it wants to focus its efforts to more efficiently address groups of threats, using tools such as broad-spectrum antibiotics and broad-spectrum antivirals.The centerpiece of the HHS report is two tables: one that plots the priority countermeasures for each threat and another that lists the proposed funding sources for each countermeasure.Diseases listed among the priority threats include anthrax, botulism, glanders, meliodosis, Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fevers, tularemia, Argentine hemorrhagic fever, typhus, smallpox, and plague.Countermeasures that HHS would like to acquire in the near term, meaning in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, include broad-spectrum antibiotics and anthrax and smallpox vaccines. The report notes that HHS recently canceled a contract for a recombinant anthrax vaccine (a reference to a vaccine that was under development by VaxGen Inc.), but the agency “remains committed to acquiring next-generation anthrax vaccines.”HHS is also working to acquire a smallpox vaccine that would be safe for immunocompromised people, the report notes. The agency “is well advanced in the pre-award stage” of a program to buy one such vaccine, called modified vaccinia Ankara, it says.The list of products for mid-term acquisition—in fiscal years 2009 through 2013—includes broad-spectrum antibiotics, diagnostic tests for all biological agents, an anthrax antitoxin, filovirus countermeasures, and smallpox antivirals, as well as measures for diagnosing and treating radiological and nuclear agents and improving the distribution of nerve agent antidotes.Longer-term projects, beyond fiscal year 2013, would include broad-spectrum antivirals and a single, easy-to-use antidote effective against several volatile nerve agents.In its press release, HHS said it was seeking public comments on the implementation plan, which can be made through the Federal Register. The agency will also hold a stakeholders meeting for those involved in developing medical countermeasures, scheduled July 31 through Aug 2 in Washington, DC.See also:Apr 18 HHS press releasehttp://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2007pres/04/20070418a.htmlApr 18 CIDRAP News story “Danish firms expects to sell smallpox vaccine to US”last_img read more

Clash over Alzheimers data intensifies

Clash over Alzheimers data intensifies

first_img Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Email The universities have markedly different accounts of events leading up to the current conflict. According to a statement released today by UCSD, USC’s cross-complaint is a “collection of distortions, misstatements and outright falsehoods.” It is, UCSD alleges, designed to distract from the fact that Aisen “illegally seized control of data and computer systems that belong to UC San Diego” while on UCSD faculty, “aided and abetted” by USC. The legal dispute “has never been about academic freedom,” UCSD adds.In contrast, USC’s suit claims that UCSD’s restriction of Aisen’s electronic access in May was “so severe,” and so compromising to his patient relationships and safety, that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) intervened to restore it. “That is not true,” responds Jacqueline Carr, a UCSD spokeswoman. On 2 July, she says, NIH confirmed that UCSD is the legal custodian of the data, and Aisen’s email was shut down to prevent its theft. “Contrary to repeated claims by Dr. Aisen and USC, this action did not affect the integrity of the data nor did it put ADCS patients at risk,” UCSD writes.USC also alleges that, after Aisen discussed his possible move to USC with his staff, UCSD Chair of the Department of Neurosciences William Mobley required Aisen to sign an “loyalty oath” pledging to hold the interests of UCSD above all others as a condition of access to the ADCS data. Aisen refused, and the suit argues that such oaths violate the First Amendment, according to a 1952 ruling by the California Supreme Court. After Aisen refused to sign the oath, USC alleges UCSD—and Mobley in particular—“set about to destroy” Aisen’s academic reputation.Although USC “makes much” of the loyalty oath, UCSD claims it is a proforma document. And it claims Aisen broke state law by attempting to “take, copy and use computer data and systems without permission of the rightful owner.” Aisen and USC say that no data were ever moved, and the Amazon cloud account has existed since 2013 when it was created at the request of sponsors, in compliance with UCSD’s cloud computing policy. Both sides appear to be girding for what could be a lengthy court battle.*Update, 4 August, 11:33 a.m.: This item has been updated to clarify the timeline of events and perspective on the creation of Aisen’s Amazon cloud account.center_img An already bitter legal dispute between the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), and the University of Southern California (USC) over control of data from a large, federally funded Alzheimer’s study just got nastier.Last month, UCSD sued USC and Alzheimer’s researcher Paul Aisen, director of the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS), for allegedly conspiring to commandeer data from the large, federally funded study after USC lured Aisen, a $55 million federal grant, and many of his lab members away from UCSD in June. According to UCSD, Aisen “took unauthorized control of ADCS data” after leaving UCSD by moving it to an Amazon cloud account. On 24 July, a California superior court found in favor of UCSD, issuing a preliminary injunction to restore control of the study data to the school.On 31 July, USC launched a blistering cross-complaint against UCSD, which claims that the university’s actions were unjustified, defamatory, and in violation of the California Constitution. Among UCSD’s alleged illegal “shenanigans”: cutting off Aisen’s email and other electronic communications while he was still at UCSD, “jeopardizing his ability to monitor clinical trials and protect patient safety and research integrity;” “pressuring Dr. Aisen to sign an unconstitutional “Oath of Loyalty”; and “defaming” him by stating to research sponsors that Aisen would be arrested and barred from practicing medicine. USC describes the USCD lawsuit as “aimed at stifling academic freedom and to intimidate [sic] researchers from leaving the UC System.” Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*)last_img read more