| Sumario: | Microorganisms have been used as weapons in criminal acts, most recently highlighted by the terrorist attack using anthrax in the fall of 2001. Although such ''biocrimes'' are few compared with other crimes, these acts raise questions about the ability to provide forensic evidence for criminal prosecution that can be used to identify the source of the microorganisms used as a weapon and, more importantly, the perpetrator of the crime. Microbiologists traditionally investigate the sources of microorganisms in epidemiological investigations, but rarely have been asked to assist in criminal investigations. A colloquium was convened by the American Academy of Microbiology in Burlington, Vermont, on June 7-9, 2002, in which 25 interdisciplinary, expert scientists representing evolutionary microbiology, ecology, genomics, genetics, bioinformatics, forensics, chemistry, and clinical microbiology, deliberated on issues in microbial forensics. The colloquium's purpose was to consider issues relating to microbial forensics, which included a detailed identification of a microorganism used in a bioattack and analysis of such a microorganism and related materials to identify its forensically meaningful source--the perpetrators of the bioattack. The colloquium examined the application of microbial forensics to assist in resolving biocrimes with a focus on what research and education are needed to facilitate the use of microbial forensics in criminal investigations and the subsequent prosecution of biocrimes, including acts of bioterrorism. First responders must consider forensic issues, such as proper collection of samples to allow for optimal laboratory testing, along with maintaining a chain of custody that will support eventual prosecution. Because a biocrime may not be immediately apparent, a linkage must be made between routine diagnosis, epidemiological investigation, and criminal investigation. There is a need for establishing standard operating procedures and training to meet these initial challenges so as minimize disturbance of the evidence. While epidemiology and forensics are similar sciences with similar goals when applied to biocrimes, forensics has additional and more stringent requirements. Maintaining a chain of custody on evidentiary samples is one example of an extra requirement imposed on an investigation of a biocrime. Another issue is the intent in microbial forensics to identify a bioattack organism in greatest detail. If possible, forensic investigations will strive to identify the precise strain and substrain, rather than just to the species level, which might be sufficient in an epidemiological investigation. Although multiple groups have developed lists of bioterrorism target pathogens, these lists are too narrow. An expansion of microorganisms relevant to food and water threats should be considered. Computerized networks should be established to track infectious disease outbreaks in real time. These systems could alert public health and agricultural officials to the existence of a potential bioattack earlier than simply waiting for a report of a suspicious cluster of similar patients. Once a biocrime is suspected, a wide variety of methods are available to identify the microorganism used in the bioattack and to analyze features that might lead to the source of the event. A multi-pronged approach to such an investigation may be preferable, using many available methods-ranging from genomics to sequencing to physiology to analysis of substances in the sample. Microbial forensics will be most effective if there is sufficient basic scientific information concerning microbial genetics, evolution, physiology, and ecology. Strain subtyping analysis will be difficult to interpret if we do not understand some of the basic evolutionary mechanisms and population diversity of pathogens. Phenotypic features associated with evidentiary pathogens also may provide investigative leads, but full exploitation of these features can only be accomplished if we understand basic principles that control microbial physiology. Finally, the more precise and refined a microbial forensic system becomes, the more proper guidelines for handling and storage will be defined. Thus, improper dissemination or use of the pathogens will be reduced and inadvertent release will be minimized. An additional outcome of establishing these guidelines or rules is that the legitimate investigator will be protected to pursue research without unnecessary intrusion. Colloquium participants identified a variety of needs and directions in the following areas: sample handling and collection, detection, research direction, data access, QA/QC, and education. General recommendations are provided for direction or insight for the scientific community, law enforcement community, legal community, and the public.
|
|---|
