- News Home
17 April 2014 12:48 pm ,
Vol. 344 ,
Officials last week revealed that the U.S. contribution to ITER could cost $3.9 billion by 2034—roughly four times the...
An experimental hepatitis B drug that looked safe in animal trials tragically killed five of 15 patients in 1993. Now,...
Using the two high-quality genomes that exist for Neandertals and Denisovans, researchers find clues to gene activity...
A new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that humanity has done little to slow...
Astronomers have discovered an Earth-sized planet in the habitable zone of a red dwarf—a star cooler than the sun—500...
Three years ago, Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University proposed that a warming Arctic was altering the behavior of the...
- 17 April 2014 12:48 pm , Vol. 344 , #6181
- About Us
'BioShield' Takes Some Licks
27 March 2003 (All day)
Legislation proposed by the Bush Administration to spur production of antibioterrorism drugs and vaccines is running into opposition in Congress. Although project "BioShield" was approved by a Senate committee last week, members of the House are voicing strong reservations about its potentially astronomical cost and negative impact on competition among biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies designing new treatments.
President George W. Bush first announced BioShield in his State of the Union address in February. BioShield aims to speed up basic research and development efforts at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which was allotted a record $1.7 billion for bioterror research in the 2003 fiscal year. It also includes a provision to distribute drugs and vaccines to combat potential bioterrorism attacks without the usual clinical tests mandated by the Food and Drug Administration.
But it was BioShield's third provision that provoked widespread concern among members of two subcommittees, one from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the other from the Committee on Homeland Security, which convened jointly today for their first discussion of the legislation. Representatives were doubtful about the Administration's plan to enter into multiyear contracts with companies producing antibioterror products and provide guaranteed financial support of the products once they reach fruition. This is necessary "to create a market" for products that wouldn't have one otherwise, explained Tommy Thompson, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Without BioShield, "there aren't going to be many companies standing in line to do this."
But House members pointed out potential flaws in that strategy. For example, if the government contracted with a company producing, say, a vaccine for plague, and then a second company developed a superior vaccine, the first contract would stand nevertheless, and the government would be stuck paying for a potentially inferior product. "You may in fact stifle innovation" by discouraging competition, said Jim Turner (D-TX), as well as waste money. Bush tentatively proposed spending $6 billion over 10 years on BioShield, but Thompson said during today's hearing that the amount is in fact "indefinite," with no limit set in any fiscal year. Furthermore, because the current BioShield bill installs the project as law, a future administration would be bound to support it even if national security priorities shifted, noted Christopher Cox (R-CA).
The Energy and Commerce and Homeland Security committees will now determine how, if at all, to alter the existing BioShield bill before voting on it.