2
Open Access Letter to the editor Bioterrorism & Biodefense Kuhlman, J Bioterr Biodef 2012, S3 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2157-2526.S3-002 ISSN:2157-2526 JBTBD, an open access journal Advances in Biosciences: Bioterrorism J Bioterr Biodef “We intend to obtain SEM images of the samples, but this must be preceded by autoclaving of the sample material for safety reasons. is may alter the morphology of the samples considerably. We recommend that USAMRIID irradiate a sample and submit it for imaging either at their facility or ours.” e SEM unit Battelle subsequently used for that work was located at Battelle’s main campus, thus necessitating the pre-treatment of the aliquots to be analyzed. Perhaps this scenario led to the incorrect statements contained in [2] and repeated in [1]. A further point regarding the sample preparation prior to the particle size analysis performed is worth quoting from the National Research Council Committee’s review of this work: “In fall 2001, Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) evaluated size distributions of aerosolized particles from untreated letter material and surrogate samples to determine whether respirable-size particles were present and whether the amount of such particles would have required specialized protocols for preparation (e.g., dispersants) [1]”. e explanatory footnote 1 states: “To remove the implication that autoclaving of letter samples was standard practice, the word “untreated” has been inserted into this sentence. e insertion represents a modification to the text that appeared in the prepublication edition of this report” [4]. Because the samples analyzed for particle size were not autoclaved, the concern expressed by Hugh-Jones et al. that the powders analyzed may not have been “in pristine condition” should be dismissed. e particle size analyses reported [3] by Battelle to the FBI effectively demonstrated that powder samples of an accepted surrogate for B. anthracis (B. atrophaeus, formerly B. subtilis var. niger and B. globigii) produced at 1 g scale by simple means and without any additives exhibited particle size and dispersability quite similar to those of the anthrax powder samples provided by the FBI. is is also the conclusion reached by the National Academy of Sciences Committee in its review of this work [4]. An additional inaccuracy contained in the review article occurs in footnote 76, referencing Battelle’s work, in which Hugh-Jones et al. [1] is note has been submitted to correct certain errors contained in a recent review article by Hugh-Jones, et al. [1]. Specifically, that review included an incorrect representation of work performed by Battelle Memorial Institute in support of the FBI’s investigation of the Amerithrax crimes. It is recognized that the erroneous representation contained in the review first appeared in the lay press [2]; however, due to the then active status of the Amerithrax investigation and because Battelle takes seriously our obligation to protect information deemed sensitive by our clients, Battelle did not respond when the errors were first published. ese are the same reasons that this author declined to speak with Mr. Richard Preston or his assistant when they were seeking information potentially relevant for the book, e Demon in the Freezer, published in 2002, and cited by Hugh-Jones, et al. in their review. e passage in the review article that cites this book and requires a response is as follows: However, there is reason to question whether the attack samples were in pristine condition when these measurements [of particle size of the anthrax powders] were carried out, or whether Battelle had autoclaved them first, which might have caused clumping. Richard Preston’s e Demon in the Freezer describes an argument at a meeting on October 22, 2001 involving the FBI laboratory, scientists from the Battelle Memorial Institute, and scientists from the Army [1]: “…One Army official is said to have blown up. . . at the meeting, saying to the Batelle [sic] man, ‘Goddamn it, you stuck your anthrax in an autoclave, and you turned it into hockey pucks’”[2]. e quoted discussion, in fact, never occurred. Most specifically, the work performed by Battelle did not include autoclaving the samples prior to fluidizing the aliquots taken for particle size analysis. Within 24 hours of receiving the call from the FBI inquiring whether Battelle could perform particle size analysis of Bacillus anthracis powder recovered from the mailed envelopes, Battelle had installed the required equipment (an Aerosizer® equipped with an Aero-Disperser®, TSI Inc., Shoreview, MN) in one of the Institute’s BSL-3 suites and had performed calibrations using standard (polystyrene latex) particles to establish readiness of the instrumentation in preparation for the B. anthracis particle size analysis. (Note that the relocation of the instrumentation and performance of the analysis in the BSL-3 suite would not have been necessary, had the samples actually been autoclaved prior to performing particle size analysis.) Subsequent to performing the particle size analysis Battelle submitted its report [3] that contained a discussion of the specific particle size analysis procedures used and the results. e report also contained a recommendation that SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) analyses be performed on the samples. e third bullet of the “Notes Regarding Sample Analysis” contained in Battelle’s report states: *Corresponding author: Michael Robert Kuhlman, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, USA, E-mail: [email protected] Received December 08, 2011; Accepted December 29, 2011; Published January 31, 2012 Citation: Kuhlman MR (2012) Letter to the Editor in response to “The 2001 At- tack Anthrax: Key Observations”, by ME Hugh-Jones, BH Rosenberg, and S Ja- cobsen, Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense S3:001. J Bioterr Biodef S3:002. doi:10.4172/2157-2526.S3-002 Copyright: © 2012 Kuhlman MR. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Letter to the Editor in response to The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations, by ME Hugh-Jones, BH Rosenberg, and S Jacobsen, Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense S3:001 Michael Robert Kuhlman* Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, USA ` `

Kuhlman, J Bioterr Biodef 2012, S3 Bioterrorism & Biodefense...Batelle [sic] man, ‘Goddamn it, you stuck your anthrax in an autoclave, and you turned it into hockey pucks’”[2]

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Kuhlman, J Bioterr Biodef 2012, S3 Bioterrorism & Biodefense...Batelle [sic] man, ‘Goddamn it, you stuck your anthrax in an autoclave, and you turned it into hockey pucks’”[2]

Open AccessLetter to the editor

Bioterrorism & BiodefenseKuhlman, J Bioterr Biodef 2012, S3

http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2157-2526.S3-002

ISSN:2157-2526 JBTBD, an open access journal Advances in Biosciences: BioterrorismJ Bioterr Biodef

• “We intend to obtain SEM images of the samples, but thismust be preceded by autoclaving of the sample material forsafetyreasons.Thismayalter themorphologyof thesamplesconsiderably. We recommend that USAMRIID irradiate asampleandsubmititforimagingeitherattheirfacilityorours.”

TheSEMunitBattellesubsequentlyusedforthatworkwaslocatedatBattelle’smaincampus, thusnecessitating thepre-treatmentof thealiquots to be analyzed. Perhaps this scenario led to the incorrectstatementscontainedin[2]andrepeatedin[1].

A further point regarding the sample preparation prior to theparticle size analysis performed is worth quoting from theNationalResearchCouncilCommittee’sreviewofthiswork:

“In fall 2001, Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI) evaluated sizedistributionsofaerosolizedparticlesfromuntreatedlettermaterialandsurrogatesamplestodeterminewhetherrespirable-sizeparticleswerepresentandwhethertheamountofsuchparticleswouldhaverequiredspecializedprotocolsforpreparation(e.g.,dispersants)[1]”.

The explanatory footnote 1 states: “To remove the implicationthat autoclaving of letter samples was standard practice, the word“untreated” has been inserted into this sentence. The insertionrepresentsamodificationtothetextthatappearedintheprepublicationeditionofthisreport” [4].

Becausethesamplesanalyzedforparticlesizewerenotautoclaved,theconcernexpressedbyHugh-Jonesetal.thatthepowdersanalyzedmaynot have been “in pristine condition” should be dismissed.Theparticle size analyses reported [3] by Battelle to the FBI effectivelydemonstrated that powder samples of an accepted surrogate forB. anthracis (B. atrophaeus, formerly B. subtilis var. niger and B. globigii) produced at 1 g scale by simplemeans andwithout anyadditivesexhibitedparticlesizeanddispersabilityquitesimilartothoseof the anthraxpowder samplesprovidedby theFBI.This is also theconclusionreachedbytheNationalAcademyofSciencesCommitteeinitsreviewofthiswork[4].

Anadditionalinaccuracycontainedinthereviewarticleoccursinfootnote76,referencingBattelle’swork,inwhichHugh-Jonesetal.[1]

Thisnotehasbeen submitted to correct certain errors containedin a recent review article byHugh-Jones, et al. [1]. Specifically, thatreview included an incorrect representation of work performed byBattelleMemorialInstituteinsupportoftheFBI’sinvestigationoftheAmerithraxcrimes.Itisrecognizedthattheerroneousrepresentationcontainedinthereviewfirstappearedinthelaypress[2];however,dueto thethenactivestatusof theAmerithrax investigationandbecauseBattelle takesseriouslyourobligationtoprotect informationdeemedsensitivebyourclients,Battelledidnotrespondwhentheerrorswerefirst published.These are the same reasons that this author declinedto speak withMr. Richard Preston or his assistant when they wereseeking informationpotentiallyrelevant for thebook,TheDemonintheFreezer,publishedin2002,andcitedbyHugh-Jones,etal.intheirreview.

Thepassageinthereviewarticlethatcitesthisbookandrequiresaresponseisasfollows:

However, there is reason to questionwhether the attack sampleswere inpristineconditionwhenthesemeasurements[ofparticlesizeof the anthrax powders] were carried out, or whether Battelle hadautoclaved them first, which might have caused clumping. RichardPreston’sTheDemonintheFreezerdescribesanargumentatameetingonOctober22,2001involvingtheFBIlaboratory,scientistsfromtheBattelleMemorialInstitute,andscientistsfromtheArmy[1]:“…OneArmyofficialissaidtohaveblownup...atthemeeting,sayingtotheBatelle[sic]man,‘Goddamnit,youstuckyouranthraxinanautoclave,andyouturneditintohockeypucks’”[2].

Thequoteddiscussion, in fact, neveroccurred.Most specifically,theworkperformedbyBattelledidnotincludeautoclavingthesamplespriortofluidizingthealiquotstakenforparticlesizeanalysis.

Within24hoursofreceivingthecallfromtheFBIinquiringwhetherBattellecouldperformparticlesizeanalysisofBacillus anthracis powderrecoveredfromthemailedenvelopes,Battellehadinstalledtherequiredequipment(anAerosizer®equippedwithanAero-Disperser®,TSIInc.,Shoreview,MN)inoneoftheInstitute’sBSL-3suitesandhadperformedcalibrations using standard (polystyrene latex) particles to establishreadiness of the instrumentation in preparation for theB. anthracisparticlesizeanalysis.(NotethattherelocationoftheinstrumentationandperformanceoftheanalysisintheBSL-3suitewouldnothavebeennecessary,hadthesamplesactuallybeenautoclavedpriortoperformingparticle size analysis.) Subsequent to performing the particle sizeanalysisBattellesubmitteditsreport[3]thatcontainedadiscussionofthespecificparticlesizeanalysisproceduresusedandtheresults.ThereportalsocontainedarecommendationthatSEM(ScanningElectronMicroscopy)analysesbeperformedonthesamples.Thethirdbulletofthe “NotesRegarding SampleAnalysis” contained inBattelle’s reportstates:

*Corresponding author: Michael Robert Kuhlman, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, USA, E-mail: [email protected]

Received December 08, 2011; Accepted December 29, 2011; Published January 31, 2012

Citation: Kuhlman MR (2012) Letter to the Editor in response to “The 2001 At-tack Anthrax: Key Observations”, by ME Hugh-Jones, BH Rosenberg, and S Ja-cobsen, Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense S3:001. J Bioterr Biodef S3:002. doi:10.4172/2157-2526.S3-002

Copyright: © 2012 Kuhlman MR. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Letter to the Editor in response to “The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations”, by ME Hugh-Jones, BH Rosenberg, and S Jacobsen, Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense S3:001Michael Robert Kuhlman*

Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, OH, USA

`

`

Page 2: Kuhlman, J Bioterr Biodef 2012, S3 Bioterrorism & Biodefense...Batelle [sic] man, ‘Goddamn it, you stuck your anthrax in an autoclave, and you turned it into hockey pucks’”[2]

Citation: Kuhlman MR (2012) Letter to the Editor in response to “The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations”, by ME Hugh-Jones, BH Rosenberg, and S Jacobsen, Journal of Bioterrorism & Biodefense S3:001. J Bioterr Biodef S3:002. doi:10.4172/2157-2526.S3-002

Page 2 of 2

ISSN:2157-2526 JBTBD, an open access journal J Bioterr Biodef Advances in Biosciences: Bioterrorism

statethat“The(NAS)Reportpointsoutthattheparticledistributionsfor the surrogate samples, unlike those for the attack samples, wereonlysketchilyreported.”The“(NAS)Report”actuallycitedaDugwayProvingGround report [5] of analyses of adifferent set of surrogatesamples analyzed several years later, not the analysis performed byBattelle.Assuch,thereferenceinfootnote76ofthereviewarticle[1]shouldhavebeentotheDugwayProvingGroundreport.

In closing, it may be worthwhile to note that published worksthatdonothavethebenefitofascientificpeerreviewprocessmaybesubject toconjecture, resulting in thepublicationof content thathasnot been verified.Relianceupon suchworks for the development ofconsequentialtechnicaltheoriescanyieldresultsthatareincorrect.

References

1. Hugh-Jones ME, Rosenberg BH, Jacobsen S (2011) The 2001 Attack Anthrax: Key Observations. J Bioterr Biodef S3: 001.

2. Preston R (2002) The Demon in the Freezer, Random House, New York.

3. Kuhlman MR (2001) Preliminary SPOT Report on Particle Size Analyses. Battelle Memorial Institute.

4. Committee on Review of the Scientific Approaches Used during the FBI’s Investigation of the 2001 Bacillus anthracis Mailings, National Research Council (2011) “Review of the Scientific Approaches Used during the FBI’s Investigation of the 2001 Anthrax Letters”, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.

5. Dugway Proving Ground (2006) Final Report for the Analytical Chemistry Analysis of Anthrax Powders. DTC Project Number 8-CO-480-000-0068.

Submit your next manuscript and get advantages of OMICS Group submissionsUnique features:

• Userfriendly/feasiblewebsite-translationofyourpaperto50world’sleadinglanguages• AudioVersionofpublishedpaper• Digitalarticlestoshareandexplore

Special features:

• 200OpenAccessJournals• 15,000editorialteam• 21daysrapidreviewprocess• Qualityandquickeditorial,reviewandpublicationprocessing• IndexingatPubMed(partial),Scopus,DOAJ,EBSCO,IndexCopernicusandGoogleScholaretc• SharingOption:SocialNetworkingEnabled• Authors,ReviewersandEditorsrewardedwithonlineScientificCredits• Betterdiscountforyoursubsequentarticles

Submityourmanuscriptat:www.omicsonline.org/submission

Thisarticlewasoriginallypublishedinaspecialissue,Advances in Biosci-ences: Bioterrorism handledbyEditor(s).Dr.NicholasEarlBurgis,EasternWashingtonUniversity,USA