Federal support for health security research is heavily weighted toward preparing for bioterrorism and other biological threats, providing significantly less funding for challenges such as monster storms or attacks with conventional bombs.

Bioterrorism and Biological Threats Dominate Federal Health Security Research

Other Priorities Get Scant Attention

Published in: Health Affairs, v. 31, no. 12, Dec. 2012, p. 2755-2763

Posted on RAND.org on December 01, 2012

by Shoshana R. Shelton, Kathryn Connor, Lori Uscher-Pines, Francesca Pillemer, James M. Mullikin, Arthur L. Kellermann

Read More

Access further information on this document at content.healthaffairs.org

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Research Question

  1. What kind of non-classified, civilian national health security research does the federal government fund?

The federal government plays a critical role in achieving national health security by providing strategic guidance and funding research to help prevent, respond to, mitigate, and recover from disasters, epidemics, and acts of terrorism. In this article we describe the first-ever inventory of nonclassified national health security–related research funded by civilian agencies of the federal government. Our analysis revealed that the US government's portfolio of health security research is currently weighted toward bioterrorism and emerging biological threats, laboratory methods, and development of biological countermeasures. Eight of ten other priorities identified in the Department of Health and Human Services' National Health Security Strategy—such as developing and maintaining a national health security workforce or incorporating recovery into planning and response—receive scant attention. We offer recommendations to better align federal spending with health security research priorities, including the creation of an interagency working group charged with minimizing research redundancy and filling persistent gaps in knowledge.

Key Findings

  • Of the more than 1,000 studies funded, 66 percent were directed toward biological threats, including bioterrorism, emerging infectious diseases, foodborne illness and pandemic influenza.
  • Fewer than 10 percent addressed natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes or floods.

Recommendation

  • Agencies should use a risk-based approach to priority setting that includes the probability of a threat occurring, the amount of damage it could inflict, and the availability of countermeasures.
Access further information on this document at content.healthaffairs.org

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.