ReviewThe Lancet. Infectious diseases2021
Biodefence research two decades on: worth the investment?
Review in The Lancet. Infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in detecting category A biothreat agents: Toward symptom-driven sensing strategies.Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2026Review
- Smallpox lesion characterization in placebo-treated and tecovirimat-treated macaques using traditional and novel methods.PLoS pathogens · 2024Article
- Integrating research infrastructures into infectious diseases surveillance operations: Focus on biobanks.Biosafety and health · 2022Article
- An introduction to the Marburg virus vaccine consortium, MARVAC.PLoS pathogens · 2022Article
- Development and evaluation of a multiplex droplet digital polymerase chain reaction method for simultaneous detection of five biothreat pathogens.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Q Fever Vaccine Development: Current Strategies and Future Considerations.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
For the past 20 years, the notion of bioterror has been a source of considerable fear and panic worldwide. In response to the terror attacks of 2001 in the USA, extensive research funding was awarded to investigate bioterror-related pathogens. The global scientific legacy of this funding has extended into the present day, highlighted by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Unsurprisingly, the surge in biodefence-related research and preparedness has been met with considerable apprehension and opposition. Here, we briefly outline the history of modern bioterror threats and biodefence research, describe the scientific legacy of biodefence research by highlighting advances pertaining to specific bacterial and viral pathogens, and summarise the future of biodefence research and its relevance today. We sought to address the sizeable question: have the past 20 years of investment into biodefence research and preparedness been worth it? The legacy of modern biodefence funding includes advancements in biosecurity, biosurveillence, diagnostics, medical countermeasures, and vaccines. In summary, we feel that these advances justify the substantial biodefence funding trend of the past two decades and set a precedent for future funding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.