Following 9/11 and the anthrax letters in 2001, the field of biodefense  significantly expanded to address global health, public health preparedness and response, medical countermeasure development, and civilian biological research, some of which includes select agents.  The increasing investment in biodefense and concern about a bioterrorism attack within the United States and abroad suggests that the landscape for biodefense policy issues and workforce needs continue to evolve.  During the past year alone, concerns about oversight of high-containment laboratories; vetting of personnel (personnel reliability); the efficacy of security measures in place for the select agent program; medical countermeasure research, development and distribution; bioterrorism and pandemic influenza preparedness; misuse of beneficial biological research and technologies; and microbial forensics have generated several policy evaluations and prompted the development of policy recommendations and legislation.  Both governmental and non-governmental experts were, and continue to be, influential during this policy process.  Although there exist several biodefense education and training programs as well as fellowships, there is still a critical need to educate the next generation of policy experts and scientists about these issues and encourage their involvement in the development of biodefense policies.

Two units of AAAS—the Center for Science, Technology and Security Policy and the Program on Scientific Freedom, Responsibility and Law – have conducted a study on educational initiatives to build a knowledgeable workforce in biodefense policy development and program management.  The goals of this study were:

• to document and describe existing educational programs and materials on biodefense policy education initiatives;
• to highlight major challenges and knowledge gaps associated with existing educational initiatives on biodefense policy; and
• to provide recommendations for improving the overall system of workforce development for individuals working on biodefense policy development and program management.

We convened a group of experts in biodefense and biosecurity on August 11, 2009 at AAAS to review existing educational initiatives on biodefense policy, and to inform recommendations for improving workforce development activities in this area.

Workshop Summary

At the AAAS workshop, participants discussed the needs of the current federal workforce for biodefense and science and technology (S&T) policy as well as currently available education and training programs to address those needs.  There was confusion about what constitutes the biodefense policy workforce; many participants wanted to include education programs on building a public health workforce capable of responding to a bioterrorism incident as well as the life science community about the potential biosecurity risks of their research. There was some disagreement among participants about whether biodefense should be a distinct discipline or an area of interest.  However, there was clear consensus about the need to recruit and educate the next generation of biodefense policy experts using an interdisciplinary curriculum; to train mid-career biodefense policy makers to enhance their knowledge of the subject and become aware of current policy issues; to provide funding mechanisms to sustain these programs and support students in the programs; to encourage and reward professional scientists to become aware of and involved in the policy process; and to support multi-disciplinary research on biodefense policy issues within the academic community.

• There is currently a very poor system in place to make young scientists (undergraduate and graduate students, and post-doctoral fellows) aware of "alternative" careers in science. Specifically, they are trained for a career in laboratory research but lack the skills to enter into a career in science policy or participate in policy-oriented activities. 
• The tenure systems at research institutions do not support academics dividing their time between the research and other activities, such as involvement in the policy process or technically-trained principal investigators focusing solely on policy-relevant research in biosecurity. 
• There is little incentive and institutional support for scientists and other academics to engage in multi-disciplinary collaborations (i.e., between technical and non-technical experts) to conduct policy-relevant research activities on biodefense issues.  
• There is insufficient funding for short-term projects and for sustaining long-term collaborations and projects on biodefense issues. 
• The level of interest, need and funding to sustain biodefense education programs is currently dependent on U.S. government priorities.
• Prospective students may not be able to afford the tuition costs for biodefense education programs and may need financial support to take these courses.
• The current balkanized structures in the federal government as well as some non-governmental settings limit the ability to work in the multi-disciplinary teams that are required to create and implement biodefense policy. 
• Currently, there is no ideal metric for determining the efficacy of existing and future biodefense policy education programs.

These challenges should be considered when building and maintaining a knowledgeable workforce and involving professional scientists in the policy process.

Recommendations

The programs presented at the workshop and follow-up discussions identified the breadth of existing programs, as well as gaps and challenges in program development.  It is our hope that the findings and recommendations in this report will improve education efforts in support of workforce development for individuals involved in biodefense policy development and/or program management.

Workshop participants identified several challenges in recruiting and promoting the involvement of scientists in the policymaking process.  These challenges are common to any science policy subject-matter.  The following recommendations focus on encouraging and rewarding scientists for their extracurricular involvement in the policy process.

1. Universities and professional societies should expose undergraduate, graduate, post-doctoral scientists, and faculty to all possible career options and funding opportunities to pursue careers outside academia.  Undergraduate and graduate students should be educated about public policy and how policy affects their research, and how scientific knowledge could impact the policy process.                  

2. Research institutions should encourage the involvement of students, post-doctoral fellows, and principal investigators in the policy process by consulting (e.g., federal government, National Research Council committee members, or professional society public policy boards), participating in policy meetings, or conducting policy-oriented research in addition to their discipline-specific research activities. 

3. Research institutions should create a reward system for senior scientists that promotes involvement in public policy and encourages mentorship of younger scientists in policy-related issues. 

4. Principal investigators should seek funding, where available, for policy-oriented research from a wide variety of federal or intergovernmental agencies and private foundations – e.g., for biodefense policy research, funding could be sought from the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, Department of Homeland Security, or the European Commission, to list a few, as well as private foundations.  Biodefense activities are undergoing diversification to include international development, ethics, and safety, for which funding sources exist.  

5. Research institution recruitment, retention, and professional recognition policies should reward multidisciplinary research activities (i.e., experts with relevant technical and non-technical backgrounds) on a variety of policy topics. These research activities could be short-term or long-term to address current and future policy issues.  Such research is valuable on its own merit; however collaborative research can enhance the quality and message of the research activity.

Specifically focusing on the biodefense policy workforce, workshop participants discussed several methods for enhancing current education programs as well as developing new programs.  While participants stressed the importance of a broad, interdisciplinary education, they noted the importance of developing education programs that recognizes workforce challenges of specific biodefense agencies.

6. Program designers should ensure that programs stress an interdisciplinary curriculum and provide a broad education that encompasses the basic needs of the biodefense policy workforce.

7. Education programs should be designed to provide students with a broad understanding about biodefense issues, and the critical skills and ability to problem-solve that will enable them to address effectively the challenges of the federal policymaking community and specific biodefense agencies.

8. Mentorship and community building activities should be incorporated into continuing education for biodefense policy experts.  These activities help build professional networks, foster innovative thinking, and promote awareness of timely policy issues.

9. For full educational value, table top exercises and simulations should be developed to include realistic scenarios and a variety of stakeholders, with multiple disciplines and perspectives.  Facilitators and students should be prepared with all relevant information needed to participate fully.

10. Biodefense education programs must have sustainable funding mechanisms in order to develop and maintain programs that encourage active participation by students in the policy process as they gain their certificate or degree.  Fellowships, scholarships, or other forms of financial compensation could support students in academic programs. These mechanisms could be provided by the federal government, private foundations, or professional societies.

11. Biodefense policy programs should recruit younger students from all educational levels – bachelors, masters, or doctoral – and incorporate field experience into their education.  Mid-career professionals should continue to be trained by these programs to enhance their knowledge and marketability.