Library

Introduction — Why? The first revelation is the unique features of bioterrorism make it particularly unmanageable in our current legal framework. Federal authorities and experts have organized these as weapons of mass destruction, earning the collective acronym, WMD; yet radiological, nuclear, and chemical threats differ significantly from bio- logical threats. Radiological, nuclear, and chemical threats are known when they occur, are spent immediately upon their attack, and have a relatively contained geographical region of impact. In marked contrast, biological threats are clandestine in their delivery, with the time of attack being unknown; the impact of a biological threat is not spent upon attack but increases exponentially in its effect on human life. The geographical region affected is limited only by the planet, facilitated by the wide use of air travel by individuals. The expertise to deal with these weapons also differs, and it is the public health community that is most critical in addressing the threat of bioterrorism. Pre- vention, too, is markedly different: criminal investigation with attendant tracking of chemicals and radiological ma- terials is required through the ports of entry and trans- portation systems. Biological materials must be tracked through medical data obtained by public health surveil- lance systems. In contrast, monitoring ports of entry and transportation systems is meaningless where much smaller quantities of biological materials than chemical and radio- logical materials can be used for a deadly attack. It is criti- cal that our infrastructure evolve to account for these unique features of bioterrorism…

Citation: Biodefense: A Legal Framework Rework – When Peacetime is the Only Time, invited article, 49 The Federal Lawyer 32-38 (October, 2002).

Introduction — This article seeks to describe the current organizational structure, the role of the federal agencies in the context of biodefense and the federalism relationship with the states. The President’s proposal for a Department of Homeland Security is also examined in the context of the legal implications for biodefense, and the shift in federalism in that proposal. In conclusion, although the Congress passed legislation creating a Department of Homeland Security, the responsibility for a defense against bioterrorism remains undefined, and this article recommends a national approach to biodefense and considerations for the future are discussed.

Citation: Biodefense – Who’s In Charge?, 13 Health Matrix 117-158 (2003). Invited article. An analysis of the organization of the federal government surrounding the September 11th attacks in the context of bioterrorism, and the relationship of the federal government with the state governments.