Lack of Anthrax Database Cited

Law enforcement officials hunting for the source of anthrax that has turned up in U.S. mailboxes lack an important tool that might help solve the mystery, some terrorism and public health experts say: a full list of the laboratories that keep anthrax on hand.

The Clinton administration asked Congress in 1999 to require U.S. laboratories to list all their dangerous biological agents, including anthrax, with the federal government. But the proposal failed amid fears that it would inhibit medical research.

Still, a pathogen database might help authorities determine the possible source of anthrax or other materials used in bioterrorism, some public health specialists say.

“Absolutely, it would be very useful,” said Dorothy Preslar of the Federation of American Scientists, who has testified on the issue before Congress. “If you had a map of everybody’s holdings, it would be easier to say this anthrax came from that particular lab.”

Jessica Stern, a lecturer on terrorism at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, said that “there are trade-offs in creating a database, but I think it’s fair to say that this is a tool that law enforcement is lacking.”

Among the downsides, she said, are that a database might discourage scientists from conducting useful research, and could give terrorists a road map to lethal materials.

Research, commercial or veterinary laboratories are only some of the possible sources of anthrax in the recent cases. At least a dozen nations are thought to have offensive biological weapons programs, and one might have intentionally or inadvertently been the source of the anthrax. In addition, a skilled person could dig anthrax spores from the ground or culture the bacteria from a sick animal.

In the mid-1990s, the Oklahoma City bombing and a series of bioterrorism scares prompted lawmakers and the Clinton administration to propose changes to the laws on the possession of pathogens.

1995 Case Involved Bubonic Plague

In part, officials were reacting to the 1995 case of Larry Wayne Harris, a microbiologist linked to white supremacist groups who had ordered, from a legitimate company, the bacteria that causes bubonic plague. Because no law barred Harris from possessing the material, he was charged only with mail fraud.

The case prompted Congress to order health officials to toughen the rules on dangerous pathogens. In 1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began requiring labs to seek permission every time they transferred or received certain bacteria, viruses or toxins. But it was not until 1998, when the agency waived a registration fee, that labs substantially complied with the regulation, Preslar said.

This gives the government a “fairly good” list of the movement of dangerous biological materials to and from U.S. labs over the last three years, Preslar said.

Dr. Ronald Atlas, dean of the University of Louisville graduate school and president-elect of the American Society for Microbiology, said the CDC transfer records would not be a complete inventory of the pathogens in U.S. laboratory freezers and petri dishes. “There would still be labs you would not identify,” he said, because they may have obtained materials before the CDC transfer rules came into effect.

Atlas also disputed the usefulness of such a list. Some strains of anthrax are found in hundreds of labs, he said, and labs are only one possible source of the toxin.

“An inventory is not going to tell me who has this and who is missing it. Nor is it going to tell me whether it came from a foreign country. I won’t know any more by having an inventory or not,” he said.

But Preslar said that, at the least, investigators could question labs known to hold a bacterium or virus that turned up in a bioterrorism scare. “They could ask, ‘Have there been any unauthorized visitors? Has your security failed in the last six months?’ ” she said.

In 1999, the Clinton administration proposed a further tightening of the lab rules. It wanted labs to register all pathogens and other dangerous agents with the federal government.

The proposal did not gain momentum because bioterrorism was not perceived as a major problem, said one former senior Justice Department official, who did not want to be identified because he works for private clients. “People said to us, ‘We’ve had a building blow up in Oklahoma City, and how would this help us with that?’ ” he said.

The registration measure was one of several proposed by Clinton. Others would have made it a crime to possess certain biological agents without a legitimate peaceful purpose. Existing law requires prosecutors to prove someone intended to use the materials to do harm.

Clinton administration officials argued that the measure would have given law officers more power to stop terrorist groups in possession of lethal agents.

Lawmakers are deciding whether to add a biological agent provision to the current anti-terrorism bill. The Senate has voted to bar the possession of dangerous biological agents for reasons “not reasonably justified” for research or other purposes. Its bill must be reconciled with the House, which did not include such restrictions.

*

Times staff writers Megan Garvey and Alan C. Miller contributed to this report.