Search

The authors present the modernization and globalization of nations and the emerging global threat of infectious diseases as the primary catalysts for the intersection of various organizations concerned with biosecurity and public health. Numerous national and multi-national organizations have reacted to this emerging threat by developing new strategic frameworks to promote prevention and preparedness. The increase in tension among various organizations on developing effective strategies is indicative of the overlapping fields of national security, biosecurity, public safety, and global health. 

In this article, the authors present the evolving field of biosecurity, specifically the "forms of expertise and the knowledge practices thorugh which disease threats are understood and managed." The authors argue that the field of biosecurity has evolved beyond biodefense and security at the national level, and instead now involves governments, militaries, health agencies, and humanitarian organizations on a global scale.

The aforementioned research article was created by Andrew Lakoff of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles and Stephen Collier of The New School in New York City. Mr. Lakoff has a background in social theory, medical anthropology, and cultural anthropology. Mr. Collier holds a doctorate degree in philosophy from the University of California Berkeley and was a former chair and associate professor in the Department of International Affairs at The New School. The two authors have collaborated previously on several research articles pertaining to global health, security, and biopolitics.

2002 RAND Corporation Report, The Global Threat of New and Reemerging Infectious Disease

2007 World Health Report, A Safer Future: Global Public Health Security in the 21st Century

"Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA)," Public Law No. 109-417

The authors present a number of current strategies that are primarily developed around an emergency modality of intervention. The strategies and protocols currently implemented by numerous organizations involve short-term interventions and responses to the immediate threat or crisis rather than the long-term socioeconomic or geopolitical factors that contribute to the emergence of such threats. The current focus lies in emergency response and humanitarian aid rather than nation building or infrastructure developments.

"These initiatives build on a growing perception among diverse actors — life scientists and public health officials, policymakers and security analysts — that new biological threats challenge existing ways of understanding and managing collective health and security. From the vantage point of such actors, the global scale of these threats crosses and confounds the boundaries of existing regulatory jurisdictions. Moreover, their pathogenicity and mutability pushes the limits of current technical capacities to detect and treat disease."

"However, the ideal of dual use faces many difficulties, in part because public health professionals often do not agree with security experts about which problems deserve attention, and how interventions should be implemented. Such disagreements point to broader tensions provoked by the current intersection of public health and national security. Public health officials and national security experts promoting preparedness strategies have very different ways of evaluating threats and responses. As a result, programs that depend on coordination between these groups may often founder."

"The report defines emerging disease as one among a number of new threats to security that 'do not stem from the actions of clearly defined individual states but from diffuse issues that transcend sovereign borders and bear directly on the effects of increasing globalization that challenge extant frameworks for thinking about national and international security.' Proposed responses to this new 'global threat' have come from various kinds of organizations, with diverse agendas."