New U.S. biodefense agency signed into law

Last month, U.S. President George Bush signed into law the US Biodefense Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), designed to speed up the development of biodefense countermeasures by funding products in the so-called advanced development stage, between the end of initial testing and commercial manufacture. However, many details about how the new entity will operate -- and its potential effect on existing drug research and development -- have not yet been entirely settled. BARDA, a program of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is intended to reinvigorate Project Bioshield, the HHS agency created in July 2004 to stockpile anti-bioterror drugs and vaccines. Project Bioshield has been criticized by large pharmaceutical companies who claim its provisions make biodefense manufacturing too risky and not profitable enough, while smaller companies interested in bioterror research say they have lacked the financial backing to develop these products.One example of a company that might have been helped by BARDA is VaxGen, the small California biotech whose $877.5 million contract to create a new anthrax vaccine was cancelled by HHS in December because its vaccine broke down too quickly to survive long storage. VaxGen, a small biotech with limited funds, could not afford to try a different formulation; under BARDA, VaxGen might have been eligible for periodic payments to find a solution. It is not yet clear how BARDA will distribute its anticipated funding ($1.07 billion through fiscal year 2008). Although Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), the legislation's Senate sponsor, has said that BARDA will act as an "aggressive venture capitalist," HHS spokesman Bill Hall told The Scientist the BARDA legislation doesn't give his agency the authority "to start infusing cash into organizations in a fashion akin to ?venture capitalists,'" who typically invest money in return for partial ownership in companies.Sen. Burr has also suggested that BARDA could fund universities and research institutions to do advanced development -- in effect, to become drug manufacturers themselves. Although this novel opportunity could point to more profits for universities, it might also spell trouble, according to some experts. Anthony Sinskey, co-director of the Program on the Pharmaceutical Industry at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan School of Management, said, "University people can't do [manufacturing] well. They think they can but they can't." Mani Subramanian, who is overseeing the construction of a small biologics manufacturing plant at the University of Iowa, agreed. "The university is not a good place to develop large-scale process and manufacturing."The BARDA legislation was designed so there would be little overlap with the National Institutes of Health -- NIH will handle basic research, and BARDA will develop and manufacture the drugs. "So I really look at it very much so as a complimentary thing, not that they're going to be encroaching on our turf at all," said Tony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).Since September 11, 2001, NIAID has been in charge of deciding what basic bioterror research the nation will fund. According to a spokesperson for Sen. Burr, NIAID will keep that role, and the BARDA director will be "much more of a requirements-driven person," creating products public health officials want. So could there someday be a conflict, with BARDA disagreeing with NIAID about which research to fund? "I would imagine that that may happen," she said. "But what I'm not saying is that NIH is going to completely change their course of business." NIH will still make the final decisions, she said.Diane Griffin, president of the American Society for Microbiology, agreed the new agency likely won't butt heads with NIH. "I don't think people are too concerned that that this is going to happen," she told The Scientist. John Dudley Miller jmiller@the-scientist.com Links within this articleT. Agres, "US weighs biodefense measures," The Scientist, November 2, 2005 http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/22818/T. Agres, "Companies on the fence about biodefense," The Scientist, October 25, 2004 http://www.the-scientist.com/2004/10/25/56/1/J.D. Miller, "US cancels anthrax vaccine contract," The Scientist, December 21, 2006. http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/38331Senator Richard Burr Press Release, "Senate Passes Burr's Bipartisan Biodefense and Pandemic Preparedness Legislation," December 5, 2006. http://www.burr.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=262&Month=12&Year=2006

New U.S. biodefense agency signed into law

The Scientist ARCHIVES

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

John Dudley Miller

Related Research Resources

A Stubborn Gene, a Failed Experiment, and a New Path

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Advancing Drug Discovery with Complex Human In Vitro Models

Redefining Immunology Through Advanced Technologies

Ensuring Regulatory Compliance in AAV Manufacturing with Analytical Ultracentrifugation

Maximizing Cancer Research Model Systems

Products

Product News

Sino Biological Pioneers Life Sciences Innovation with High-Quality Bioreagents on Inside Business Today with Bill and Guiliana Rancic

Sino Biological Expands Research Reagent Portfolio to Support Global Nipah Virus Vaccine and Diagnostic Development

Beckman Coulter Life Sciences Partners with Automata to Accelerate AI-Ready Laboratory Automation

Refeyn named in the Sunday Times 100 Tech list of the UK’s fastest-growing technology companies