US pays $5.8 million in anthrax lawsuit - June 30, 2008
The US government is to pay $5.8 million to a bio-defence researcher named as a ‘person of interest’ in the 2001 anthrax incidents.
In return Steven Hatfill has agreed to drop his claim that his privacy was violated by government officials (background on Wikipedia).
Steven Hatfill was identified in the press as a suspect in the incidents, and was at one point under 24-hour surveillance. Earlier this year US Judge Reggie Walton said, “There is not a scintilla of evidence that would indicate that Dr Hatfill had anything to do with this.” (LA Times).
Despite agreeing to pay Hatfill millions in an out of court settlement the US Justice Department issued the following statement:
The United States does not admit to any violation of the Privacy Act and continues to deny all liability in connection with Dr. Hatfill’s claims. (AP, and others.)
USA Today’s opinion column is scathing about this:
In settling the case, the government denied doing anything wrong — but it paid the sort of money that suggests it did something very stupid. The ‘person of interest’ gambit can amount to public conviction of innocent suspects without trial.
The Chronicle of Higher Education notes the impact of the whole issue on Hatfill:
At the height of the investigation, in 2002, Dr. Hatfill was fired from his position as associate director at Louisiana State University’s National Center for Biomedical Research and Training. The turmoil at the center surrounding Dr. Hatfill’s employment during the investigation, and a directive from the U.S. Department of Justice that Dr. Hatfill be barred from participating in any research paid for by the department, also led to the dismissal of Stephen L. Guillot, the center’s director.
There is another, ongoing issue related to the case. In a related court case reporter Toni Locy was subpoenaed in an attempt to find out which government sources briefed her about Hatfill. As she refused to reveal her source she is was hit with a contempt of court ruling and fines of up to $5,000 a day. She is appealing this decision (USA Today).
Previous Nature coverage
Anthrax case provokes doubt among experts
Two fired in wake of anthrax investigation
NB: The NY Times says the settlement is for $4.6 million, but explains, “The lawyers will take their fee out of the settlement, which will pay out $5.8 million over 20 years. The $4.6 million figure is the cost of the annuity to the government.”
Image: anthrax / WHO
Comments
The forensic science evidence behind the anthrax attacks is highly controversial and needs to be properly debated by scientists qualified not only in microbiology but also the physics and chemistry of aerosol powders.
FBI scientist Douglas Beecher published a highly controversial paper in August 2006 - claiming, without data, that the spores contained no additives. This is the opposite of what was reported by US Army labs.
Details are given here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
The August 2006 issue of Applied and Environmental Microbiology contained an article written by Dr. Douglas Beecher of the FBI labs in Quantico, VA.[22] The article, titled "Forensic Application of Microbiological Culture Analysis to Identify Mail Intentionally Contaminated with Bacillus anthracis spores ," states "Individuals familiar with the compositions of the powders in the letters have indicated that they were comprised simply of spores purified to different extents." The article also specifically criticizes "a widely circulated misconception" "that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production." The harm done by such things is described this way: "This idea is usually the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous compared to spores alone. The persistent credence given to this impression fosters erroneous preconceptions, which may misguide research and preparedness efforts and generally detract from the magnitude of hazards posed by simple spore preparations." However, after this article had appeared the editor of Applied and Environmental Microbiology, L. Nicholas Ornston, stated that he was uncomfortable with Beecher's statement in the article since it had no evidence to back it up and contained no citation.[23]
In August 2007 Dr. Kay Mereish, UN Chief, Biological Planning and Operations, published a letter in Applied and Environmental Microbiology titled "Unsupported Conclusions on the Bacillus anthracis Spores".[25] This letter, published in the same journal as FBI scientist Douglas Beecher (see paragraph above), points out that the statements made by Dr. Beecher in his article on the lack of additives were not backed up with any data. She suggested that Dr. Beecher publish a paper with analytical data showing the absence of silica or other additives. Such data would include SEM images of the pure spores as well as EDX spectra and EDX images showing the absence of any foreign additives such as silica or the elements silicon and oxygen. Dr. Mereish referenced a 2006 CBRN, Counter-Proliferation and Response meeting in Paris where a presenter announced that an additive was present in the attack anthrax that affected the spore's electrical charges.
Posted by: Watchmaker | July 1, 2008 03:53 AM