Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-nr6nt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:55:12.447Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Surveillance of Bioterrorism Agents: Considerations for EM Laboratories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

Sara E. Miller*
Affiliation:
Duke University Medical Center

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Biowarfare was first documented in the eighteenth century during the French and Indian War when the British distributed smallpox-contaminated blankets to the American Indians. Smallpox is considered a likely agent even today because the USSR was known to have produced and stockpiled large amounts of the virus even after signing the 1972 treaty prohibiting such production. Because of the large number of workers involved and the poor economy, the security of these stockpiles is unclear [1, txtwriler.com/Backgrounders/Bioterrorism/bioterrar4.html]. Since the terrorist attacks in the United States in 2001, world attention has been drawn to terrorism and potential release of dangerous biological organisms. Considerable efforts are being made to establish methods for rapidly recognizing these agents. Numerous electron microscopy (EM) laboratories have been approached to join rapid response teams for the detection of viral agents. However, several issues should be carefully considered before an EM laboratory agrees to participate in surveillance.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2004

References

[1] Tucker, J.B., The Once and Future Threat of Smallpox. Atlantic Monthly Press, New York, 2001.Google Scholar
[2] Miller, S.E., Ultrastruct, Pathol. 27 (2003) 133.Google Scholar
[3] Miller, S.E., in Lennette, E.H., Lennette, D.A., Lennette, E.T. (eds.) Laboratory Diagnosis of Viral Infections, ed. 3. New York, Dekker, 1995, pp. 3778.Google Scholar
[4] Gelderblom, H.R., Hazelton, P.R., Emerg, Infect, Dis, 5 (2000) 842.Google Scholar