Mapping stakeholders and policies in response to deliberate biological events. Issue 12 (December 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Katz, Rebecca; Graeden, Ellie; Abe, Keishi; Attal-Juncqua, Aurelia; Boyce, Matthew R.; Eaneff, Stephanie
• Is Part Of: Heliyon. Volume 4:Issue 12(2018)
• Publication Date: 2018-12
• Subjects: Information science -- Public health -- Epidemiology -- Political science; Research -- Periodicals; Medical sciences -- Periodicals; Natural history -- Periodicals; Social sciences -- Periodicals; Earth sciences -- Periodicals; Physical sciences -- Periodicals; 507.2
• DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2018.e01091
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2405-8440

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Recent infectious disease outbreaks have brought increased attention to the need to strengthen global capacity to prevent, detect, and respond to natural biological threats. However, deliberate biological events also represent a significant global threat, but have received relatively little attention. While the Biological Weapons Convention provides a foundation for the response to deliberate biological events, the political mechanisms to respond to and recover from such an event are poorly defined. Methods: We performed an analysis of the epidemiological timeline, the international policies triggered as a notional deliberate biological event unfolds, and the corresponding stakeholders and mandates assigned by each policy. Findings: The results of this analysis identify a significant gap in both policy and stakeholder mandates: there is no single policy nor stakeholder mandate for leading and coordinating response activities associated with a deliberate biological event. These results were visualized using an open source web-based tool published athttps://dbe.talusanalytics.com . Interpretation: While there are organizations and stakeholders responsible for leading security or public health response, these roles are non-overlapping and are led by organizations not with limited interaction outside such events. The lack of mandates highlights a gap in the mechanisms available to coordinate response and a gap in guidance for managing the response. The results of the analysis corroborate anecdotal evidence from stakeholder meetings and highlight a critical need and gap in deliberate biological response policy.