NY Times on Project Bioshield and VaxGen anthrax vaccine
As we catch up on our inbox, a story on Project Bioshield in the New York Times in late September caught our eye. It's worth noting, albeit late, for those who haven't yet seen it. (Recall that Project Bioshield is the $5.6 billion series of programs which is largely the result of the 2001 anthrax attack, intended to develop drugs and vaccines to respond to probable agents of bioterrorism.)
The road to developing safe and effective products has been more than a bit bumpy, to put it mildly, and every few months a major publication offers a rather gloomy assessment of where the work stands, particularly with regard to VaxGen's next-generation anthrax vaccine, the keystone of the project. Back in March, the Washington Post weighed in, as we wrote about here.
The New York Times story linked above explores the struggle between Emergent Biosolutions (the maker of the old anthrax vaccine) and VaxGen (the small company awarded the major contract to develop the new product). For those few who didn't already recognize how entangled politics, science, and public health are (is there anyone?), the story makes that point, and others, quite clear.
The road to developing safe and effective products has been more than a bit bumpy, to put it mildly, and every few months a major publication offers a rather gloomy assessment of where the work stands, particularly with regard to VaxGen's next-generation anthrax vaccine, the keystone of the project. Back in March, the Washington Post weighed in, as we wrote about here.
The New York Times story linked above explores the struggle between Emergent Biosolutions (the maker of the old anthrax vaccine) and VaxGen (the small company awarded the major contract to develop the new product). For those few who didn't already recognize how entangled politics, science, and public health are (is there anyone?), the story makes that point, and others, quite clear.
feeds.feedburner.com/vaccineethics