kuhlman, j bioterr biodef 2012, s3 bioterrorism & biodefense...batelle [sic] man, ‘goddamn it,...

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: kuhlmanm@battelle.org

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

`

`

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