Download a Copy of this Document

HTML version ,Text Version

Sunday July 9^th

Dr. Joe Rosen addressed the session.  He start off by referring to the Defense Science Board finding that biological attack could equaled a nuclear attack in its impact on our population.  He read his position paper, which is included in the white papers.  Dr. Rosen proposed that it is our national interest to embark upon a major research initiative comparable to the Manhattan project to develop a coherent strategy for biodefense based upon advanced computer simulation combined with robotic technology.  Dr. Rosen used the experience of the simulation scenarios performed on Saturday as an argument that the present plan for extensive cooperation between various federal and state agencies may need to be improved by unified command structure which would probably best manage the military units trained to deal with biowarfare.  Dr. Rosen foresees a great need to build a strong science and technology base for biological defense.  He sees the need for extensive practice and training, which would engage non-DoD participants for that preparation.

Dr. David Franz of the Southern Research Institute presented the findings of his white paper.  He stated that we do not know the limits of biotechnology either offensively or defensively.  At present they are no technological solutions.  We need a much deeper technological research base to find future answers.  We need to find the sustained leadership necessary to find and manage a Manhattan-type initiative.  This initiative would have to be coordinated across agencies, civilian, and military lines.  The Department of Defense can do the research and development but we need to bring industry into the project to bring the items to market.

Intelligence procurement is both important of and difficult to implement.  Much of the production machinery can be used for dual purposes.  Intelligence with technological resources must be complemented with human access.  There is a need for cooperative threat reduction just as we have done with the Russian nuclear program.  There is a need for better threat analysis so that prevention, preparation, simulation, and response are properly planned out.  The public health structure can be improved to help us deal with biological threats, and, has the added benefit of improving the health of our society.

Forensics is another top priority.  We must be able to dissect down to molecular level.  This type of crime must be handled like any other to preserve evidence including microbial and DNA sampling.    Laboratory architecture must continue to improve for more rapid detection, analysis, and treatment.  Its methods of analysis will need to be validated.  These investments in our capabilities will allow the president to respond the future threats.

Medical countermeasures must be improved.  This includes preclinical diagnosis (detection).  This allows for earlier treatment he also allows us to know who was exposed.  Dr. Franz believes that selective vaccines may be effective for military personnel.  We can work harder on our antiviral drug program, leveraging the efforts of the pharmaceutical industry.  New masks and suits are more useful for the military than for the civilian population.  Dr. Franz points out that even the use of a mask requires early warning.  Dr. Franz discussed the need for interagency collaboration, both horizontally and vertically.  He commented that yesterday's scenarios illustrated how this can be difficult.  Good information is key for good cooperation.

Better educating the public and first responders must be a priority.  The effort must be thought out carefully.  The United States might look to the Israeli model for such planning.  In the discussion that followed Dr. Franz's presentation, there was agreement of a need to have the will to retaliate based on our forensic findings.  Our technology we needs to be accurate enough to properly attribute a terrorist incident so that conventional retaliation can be made.

Randall Murch, Director of Advanced Systems and Concepts Office, Defense Threat Reduction Agency addressed the panel with the following observations.  This conference, like others that preceded it, has assessed the threat from biological terrorism to be real.  The United States needs to consider how social engineering may be able to prevent future terrorist incidents by its own citizens.  Using modern technology, there is now the opportunity to study and model terrorist groups.  From such modeling, we can be better prepared to design our responses.  They threat is critical.  There needs to be seamless integration of information technology.  Command and control centers must be able to communicate important information to response teams.

There is a need for rapid response and mobile response teams.  Mr. Murch agrees that are educational resources must be better distributed.  He cites a naval operation in Orlando as one resource.  Early warning is imperative for effect deterrents.  There must be good medical intelligence and preparation.  He believes that the best defense is a good offense.  Planning is entwined with education.  Education then leads to better preparation.  In his opinion, the public health system needs to be prepared for such a threat.  Grants and funding can bring more attention to this public health need.  Awareness is very important for good preparation.  Mr. Murch believes that this effort requires leadership though it may not quite rise to level of a Manhattan project.

In the discussion that followed Mr. Murch's discourse, Dr. Rosen discussed some of the new technology which can be quickly brought to bear upon this problem.  Robotics as response technology is now feasible.  It institutions like Carnegie-Mellon, robotics research is progressing rapidly.  Dr. Rosen has seen demonstrated a small, autonomous helicopter which can fly up 50 feet off the ground and accurately deliver a 1 kg package.  This helicopter can be programmed with GPS (global positioning system) instructions.  He foresees using robotics to feel often quarantined an area.  His proposed simulation system relies upon hardened networks or rapidly deployed fiber-optic cable to provide communication bandwidth.  Dr. Rosen believes that science has become so specialized that we lack people who can operate across specialties to create these types of response technologies.

Prof. George Cybenko spoke to the computer issues.  Dr. Cybenko sees command and control as radically evolving in the next few years.  To illustrate this, he pointed to the bust of Sylvanius Thayer in the conference room.  The Mr. Thayer graduated from Dartmouth College and attended West Point around 1800.  From there, he traveled to France to study how Napoleon led his troops.  Napoleon required regular reports every week.  Napoleon found this led to better management and helped avoid confrontation.  This type of management came to be known as the line staff method.  It¹s time for us to invent new management styles.  We need to study the infrastructure of the Web deal to find new management techniques.  The Web allows for information to be shared.  Information is also dispersed on many servers.  This net infrastructure allows for new sensors (software gauges and monitors) to be programmed, for the structures to be built (programmed), and for us to synthesize novel ways to organize ourselves.  A question was raised regarding the reliability of such a network.  Prof. Cybenko answer to the effect that nobody said it would be easy but he felt confident it could be done.

With time running out for the conference, a few last comments were taken from the participants.  Dedicated communication capabilities and mobile telemedicine were described as quite desirable.  The important idea that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure applies here as well.  There can be lots of dual utility of systems to promote worthwhile projects such as improving public health.  The conferees agreed that an advisory board would review and approve a final report, then adjourned.

For further conference information, please view our website, www.engineering.dartmouth.edu/~ethreats/, and the white papers submitted.

go back to page 3