- News Home
6 March 2014 1:04 pm ,
Vol. 343 ,
Magdalena Koziol, a former postdoc at Yale University, was the victim of scientific sabotage. Now, she is suing the...
Antiretroviral drugs can protect people from becoming infected by HIV. But so-called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP...
Two studies show that eating a diet low in protein and high in carbohydrates is linked to a longer, healthier life, and...
Considered an icon of conservation science, researchers at World Wildlife Fund (WWF) headquarters in Washington, D.C.,...
The new atlas, which shows the distribution of important trace metals and other substances, is the first product of...
Early in April, the first of a fleet of environmental monitoring satellites will lift off from Europe's spaceport in...
Since 2000, U.S. government health research agencies have spent almost $1 billion on an effort to churn out thousands...
- 6 March 2014 1:04 pm , Vol. 343 , #6175
- About Us
PNAS Publishes Botulinum Paper
28 June 2005 (All day)
The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) today published, unchanged, a hot-button paper modeling a possible bioweapons attack. The decision displeased officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), who last month asked PNAS to pull the paper.
The paper concerns a study, led by Stanford University mathematician Lawrence Wein, that models a terrorist attack on the U.S. milk supply using botulinum toxin and discusses possible preventive measures. PNAS released the paper 25 May to reporters, but delayed publishing it after HHS assistant secretary for public health emergency preparedness Stewart Simonson suggested the information could aid terrorists (ScienceNOW, 31 May).
After meeting with HHS and conducting a review, PNAS decided the paper should be published with only copy editing changes, writes National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts in an editorial accompanying an online version of the paper. Data in the paper that could help a terrorist--such as the lethal dose of botulinum toxin to humans--are freely available on the Internet, Alberts writes, and the modeling "can be valuable for biodefense." Wein, who had given HHS a copy of the paper last fall, is positive about the experience: "PNAS acted quite honorably," he says. "I think it was right for them to hear the government out."
But HHS feels its concerns weren't addressed. "While I respect the Academy's decision, I do not agree with it," Simonson told Science. "If the Academy is wrong, the consequences could be serious, and it will be HHS--not the Academy--that will have to deal with them." Alberts suggests that the incident serve as a case study for a new biosecurity advisory panel that will hold its first meeting later this week.
With reporting by Jon Cohen