ArticleBiosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science2010
Destruction of microbial collections in response to select agent and toxin list regulations.
Article in Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Confronting the threat of bioterrorism: realities, challenges, and defensive strategies.The Lancet. Infectious diseases · 2019Review
- Genomic signatures of strain selection and enhancement in Bacillus atrophaeus var. globigii, a historical biowarfare simulant.PloS one · 2011Article
- Developing a behavioral health screening program for BSL-4 laboratory workers at the National Institutes of Health.Biosecurity and bioterrorism : biodefense strategy, practice, and science · 2011Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this study we have followed up on anecdotal and hearsay evidence that microbial collections were destroyed in the United States following the imposition of the regulations associated with the Select Agents and Toxins List, to validate or refute that information. Using a questionnaire, we documented 13 episodes of microbial collection destruction involving viral, bacterial, and fungal strains, which we believe is almost certainly an underestimate of the number of collections destroyed. In every case, the motivation for the destruction of the collection was a desire to avoid the perceived burdens of the regulatory environment associated with operating under the Select Agent Regulations. Some institutions that destroyed isolates considered, and in some cases tried, transferring their collections to registered institutions prior to collection destruction but desisted when confronted with transport regulations. Destruction of microbial collections represents a loss of strains and biological diversity available for biomedical research and future mechanistic, forensic, and epidemiologic investigations. Given the rapid evolution of microbial strains, the destruction of archival collections is a potentially irretrievable loss that was an unintended consequence of regulations to protect society against the nefarious use of biological agents. Furthermore, unregistered institutions continue to destroy newly acquired clinical isolates, thus preventing the establishment of new repository collections. We recommend that government agencies develop plans to ensure that microbial collections are preserved when considering future additions to microbial threat lists under which the possession of certain microbes is criminalized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.