What Happened to the Anthrax Scare?

What Happened to the Anthrax Scare?

Hello again Teamliquid! After reading the feedback from the previous blog, I have made considerable changes to the presentation and style of this blog. My goal for this blog is to present an informative assessment of the United States’ reaction to the anthrax scare (known as Amerithrax). I am going to focus on the response by the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to calm public concerns and find the offender. The majority of information presented in this blog comes from various sources (presented at the end), and I encourage everyone to read/watch them if you have spare time. Your feedback is always welcome, and I anticipate some healthy discussion regarding the anthrax case (./equips flame retardant suit, lol).

Historical context:

Shortly following the tragedy of 9/11 the United States faced a new terror, anthrax. On October 5, 2001, Robert Stevens, a newspaper photo editor in Boca Raton, Florida opened a letter filled with Bacillus anthracis. Robert along with four other victims succumbed to the fatal effects of anthrax, and seventeen other individuals contracted the bacteria. Thousands of governmental employees received testing and antibiotics to combat possible contamination. Numerous governmental buildings closed for decontamination. During this time, the media focused intently on the role of the FBI and CDC in responding to international and domestic attacks. The public and media criticized the CDC’s response and timeliness of operations following the first anthrax attack. Surgeon General David Satcher and the CDC director offered few details on the attacks and how the public could obtain treatment, which increased public scrutiny.

The FBI’s forensics lab was not prepared to handle biochemical weapons like anthrax. The FBI sought the assistance of the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) to determine the origins of the anthrax strain. The Bush administration pressured the FBI to crack the case as soon as possible, but the agency had few leads. After a New York Times columnist revealed the identity of a “Mr. Z” as the one who conducted the anthrax attacks, the FBI began investigating the suspect. Mr. Z was later identified as Steven Hatfill, who the FBI investigated intently. Mr. Hatfill declared his innocence throughout the investigation, and after numerous searches of his home, work, and public shaming the FBI looked for other targets. Mr. Hatfill later won a 5.8 million dollar civil suit against the United States for invasion of privacy.

[image loading]

The FBI restructured its investigation of the anthrax case and brought on a “new pair of eyes” to reexamine evidence. The newly created team focused on employees of USAMRIID. One employee, Dr. Bruce Ivins, caught the attention of special agents. The investigators found numerous inconsistencies with Dr. Ivins’ reports of the anthrax strain used in the attacks, and the total hours he spent in the army lab before and during the anthrax attacks. Dr. Ivins’ coworkers defended his work, explained that he worked at numerous army bases, and that he would not have enough time to carefully construct an anthrax strain without other workers finding out. The FBI still believed Dr. Ivins was the primary target, and they eventually obtained a search warrant for his house and office.

Eventually the FBI found Dr. Ivins had a strange obsession with a sorority, and he regularly traveled to different sorority houses to steal their “secret books.” The FBI did not find any evidence that tied Dr. Ivins to the anthrax attacks, but they did find that Dr. Ivins was in a fragile mental state. Despite this knowledge the FBI continued its intense investigation, and Dr. Ivins later committed suicide. Although the FBI has closed the anthrax case, there is little evidence that clearly links Dr. Ivins to the anthrax attacks. An outside investigation by the National Academy of Sciences revealed inconsistent evidence that Dr. Ivins carried out the attacks.

Government Response

[image loading]

(Props for those of you who understand the picture!

)

One study conducted by Liana Winett and Regina Lawrence in 2005 examined the media’s portrayal of the CDC during the height of the anthrax scare. The authors examined articles from The New York Times and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (where the CDC is headquartered) to determine if portrayal of the CDC was politically biased. Before moving forward, it is important to mention Republicans and Democrats approved 50 million dollars in improving state and local public health centers across the United States in 2000, which is a miniscule amount. The majority of stories examined within the study (157 total) praised and criticized the CDC’s response to the anthrax scare. Criticisms usually focused on the unprepared staff working with the CDC to handle an anthrax problem. Articles from the Times highlighted the inefficient communication system among governmental agencies, whereas articles from Atlanta Journal focused on the inadequacies of the public health infrastructure. Interestingly, neither newspaper (only 2% of stories) shifted the blame to a political party, but instead criticized the governing agency.

Why Should We Care?

So, we have examined the investigation of Amerithrax, and we have also assessed the media’s focus during the height of the attacks. What can we glean from these assessments? I believe the attacks revealed that the United States infrastructure is capable of handling these attacks, but it is the manner in which they are handled that is of debate. The Bush administration had rightful reasons to place pressure on the FBI to chase every possible lead, and to find the culprit. However, the problem with the FBI’s investigation is multi-pronged. The first problem is the inexperience of the FBI to handle bioterror attacks, which are unlikely to occur in the first place. Although the FBI was unprepared for these attacks, the majority of training responses to terrorist attacks focused on biological or chemical attacks preceding 9/11. In fact, Bruce Hoffman (author of the book Inside Terrorism) states the United States utilized approximately two-thirds of its 201 training programs for this particular event.

Another problem with the FBI’s investigation was their misguided focus on Steven Hatfill, who they believed operated an anthrax lab underneath a lake (draining the lake cost approximately $20,000). This action is outrageous and highly difficult for one individual to accomplish without adequate lab support. The first leads the FBI should have investigated are places capable of manufacturing a unique strain of anthrax that is “dry.” Powdery anthrax is far more difficult to create and control than “wet” anthrax. Despite this gross oversight from the FBI, I feel as though I am acting as “Captain Hindsight” from South Park. Therefore, I would like to state following 9/11 the United States was already on high-alert, and maybe the individual that mailed the anthrax wanted to intensify the country’s fear of terrorists. Although the motives behind the anthrax attacks are not clearly known, it is certain the FBI and CDC have learned from the mishandling of these cases.

Concluding Thoughts

I would like to conclude by discussing the importance of having transparent governmental actions and relations with the public. The media is a powerful tool of communication, and can serve as a medium of communication or dissonance for the government. Assessing the media’s portrayal of governmental agencies during the anthrax case reveals the media focused on the actual problems occurring within the CDC to effectively communicate with the public and operate efficiently. The FBI also spent time forcing leads instead of seeking outside assistance from qualified citizen biochemical researchers, which they contracted late into the investigation.

I wanted to discuss the anthrax case because it occurred following a time of tragedy and public weariness in the United States. In the book Overblown, the author discusses the improbability of the United States suffering major losses from a biochemical attack. I agree with his assessment, and I believe the United States should focus on domestic policing and educating the public to understand or notice if something strange is happening. Most biochemical attacks require a perfect environment where the bacteria can settle, which means an enclosed environment. However, even in that scenario the author asserts the enclosed environment will be quickly evacuated and human losses will be minimal. In instances where an individual with top clearance goes “rogue,” it is still equally difficult for that person to successfully kill hundreds of individuals. Dr. Ivins, the primary suspect in Amerithrax, did not have the time or privacy to create a strain of anthrax without his coworkers finding out something strange was occurring. The prevention of all human life during a terrorist attack is an appreciable but highly unlikely goal to maintain. Educating the public and increasing the difficulty for potential terrorists to obtain hazardous materials is key.

Sources:
Frontline's The Anthrax Files (Highly recommended watch!)
Overblown - John Mueller
Inside Terrorism - Bruce Hoffman
The Rest of the Story : Public Health, the News, and the 2001 Anthrax Attacks - Winett and Lawrence
http://www.thenation.com/article/anthrax-anxiety

Edit: Pictures fixed! Thanks for heads up!

What Happened to the Anthrax Scare?

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming