Global Fund struggles to meet US deadline

Newsdesk Biosafety laboratories proliferate across the USA of two national biocontainment points out that the BSL-4 laboratories laboratories (NBLs) and nine regional are not just for bioterrorism and biocontainment laboratories (RBLs). biosecurity, but also for epidemics The NBLs will contain caused by both natural state-of-the-art BSL-4, and unnatural entities. Rights were not BSL-3, and BSL-2 And epidemics caused laboratories, whereas by natural means far granted to the RBL programme outnumber the manmade include this will develop facilities ones. “The USA hasn’t image in for only BSL-3 and had an offensive BSL-2 laboratories. programme since the electronic In addition, NIAID early 1970s”, he says. media. Please has plans to build two “People get hung up refer to the BSL-4 facilities for its about bioterrorism and own employees. The the possibility that these printed journal. army, the Department agents are being used as it of Homeland Security, bioweapons, . . . but needs to be put into and the Department of perspective.” Agriculture also intend Contained in a BSL-4 positive Massive globalisation to build laboratories of pressure suit has created the ideal their own. Currently, there are four fully operational BSL-4 conditions to move pathogens around facilities in the USA, and about 45 BSL- the world, and there has been a 3 laboratories. Plans to open one of the dramatic resurgence of infectious NBL facilities at Boston University diseases that have nothing to do with (Boston, MA, USA) have been stalled bioterrorism, Gubler contends. “It because of widespread community has to do with population growth, demographic changes, and complaopposition. Duane Gubler (University of cency about infectious diseases. So we Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, USA), former have to decide what we need to do to director of the Division of Vector- protect ourselves against disease, Borne Infectious Diseases at the Centers whether natural or intentional.” for Disease Control and Prevention, Roxanne Nelson Timothy Jacobsen/AP

The planned expansion of biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) laboratories across the USA has become hotly contested. Proponents of the laboratories believe that they are needed to develop effective therapies and vaccines against potential bioterrorist weapons. The concerns of opponents range from safety issues to fears that the USA will violate the Biological Weapons Convention. “The fears are not completely unfounded,” says Edward Hammond, Director of the Sunshine Project, a nonprofit biodefence watchdog (Austin, TX, USA). “The programme is expanding too quickly, there are no controls, and there are environmental and public health concerns. The current system is not up to the task of ensuring biodefence safety and security.” In the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York, and the anthrax mail scares that happened shortly afterwards, bioterrorism defence transformed into a high priority. Government spending on biodefence research has risen six-fold since 2000, with funding specifically designated for biological research and development. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) has allocated funds for the construction

Global Fund struggles to meet US deadline The USA is unlikely to contribute its full 2004 pledge of US$547 to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria (GFATM). US legislation stipulates that they cannot exceed 33% of the cumulative non-US contributions to the fund, which means the USA can only give US$426 million. The US appropriation of US$547 million was made in their fiscal year, which runs from October to October. An arbritary deadline of July 31was set by the USA for all pledges to be paid into the fund. The trouble with that, explained Jon Liden, spokesperson for the GFATM was that “most donors used a fiscal year of January through December, and that many countries normally paid their contribution towards the end of the year”. Randall

596

Tobias, head of the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief has agreed to review the position after September 30, stating if the US$242 million from other donors had arrived by then he would hand over the US$121 to the fund. “We are trying to urge our other donors who have pledged almost all of that money to pay it in by September 30. This is no easy task, since a lot of these countries have their own financial regulations, and they are not inclined to jump through a lot of hoops just to satisfy that condition”, says Liden. An additional US$55 million in the form of new pledges will also be needed. “There is no guarantee that we will receive the full amount to maximise the US contribution this year. We are also

worried that US congress will argue that if the GFATM can’t use the full 2004 contribution, there is no need to increase the 2005 contribution”, he adds. The UK, another major contributor to the fund, has doubled its pledge to £154 million over the next 3 years, but that is only 10% of the £1·5 billion scale-up to tackle HIV/AIDS over the same period. A spokesperson from the UK’s Department for International Development told TLID, “we are prepared to consider putting more money into the GFATM subject to it demonstrating its effectiveness. The aim is to get help to people who need it, and to close the £6·6 billion funding gap— not to fund a particular group or instrument”. Pam Das

Infectious Diseases Vol 4 October 2004

http://infection.thelancet.com

For personal use. Only reproduce with permission from Elsevier Ltd.