keim, i totally agree with. i just have to say for the record, i disagree with many of the things in his letter. >> no, i appreciate it and i thank you for it. do you have reaction that the moratorium should be extended and if so, for how long? >> i totally agree about an extension. the real critical issue is for how long. this is a voluntary moratorium and i think that's something the public need to. i had discussions with the scientists and encouraged them and they to their credit and to the discussion that dr. keim had, that was something they agreed upon. exa exactly when to call it off, i think we need to see how we can have and we're very actively involveds in bush pushing forward the imp menation of the dirk policy. that's going to have an important impact on when we can feel comfortable that we can then go on. so as long as people understand the mechanisms of how would dress dirk. several of the labs involved understand that now. i definitely agree with that. i just want to make one point of minor disagr

keim for being here. and please proceed with your testimony now. >> chairman lieberman, thank you for holding this hearing on biological security, the risk of dual-use research. i am paul keim, the acting chair of the national science advisory board for biosecurity. i appreciate the opportunity to speak to you about dual-use research and in particular about the board's activities and our recent evaluation of two scientific papers concerning the avian h5n1 virus. it's been recognized for many years that science and technology can be used for both good purposes and bad. it is this two-sided coin that we refer to as dual-use research. the problem is that all biological research can be construed as having potential bad applications, as well as their good ones. the nsabb created a new term, dual-use research of concern or durc, as we've been saying, to distinguish normal research from that with high potential to be misused. the parameters defining durc would include the magnitude any of danger, and the immedia

keim for being here. and please proceed with your testimony now. >> chairman lieberman, thank you for holding this hearing on

keim, why don't you begin? >> first off on the committee, we are again a board of 25 high ly qualified individuals and we rarely agree upon anything. >> sounds like congress. >> i know. awe although we may not be highly qualified. >> i must say we actually embrace this dissent and weep use it and we cherish the different members and their opinions and it's true for this particular example as well. i did, this was in fact, a letter that was meant for an internal type of a process for us to understand in a retrospective fashion what we had done and what we had come through and it was as such, i view it as a very constructive type of communication. it was unfortunate that it was leaked and it became part of the public dialogue. it makes it harder to have a constructive and proactive type conversation there. many things you said are worth examining. one point that he makes in the letter is in fact there was a bias in the witness list. i think that -- that is true. the primary witnesses that we brought in were -- we

keim and dr.give you an opportunity to respond to the dissent in the letter, which was i gather originally a confidential letter, then was leaked from michael osterholm in his criticism of nsabb decisions. and to some extent, not totally reflected by dr. inglesby, but also dr. inglesby expressing some concern about the decision. dr. khan, why don't you begin? >> so, first off, on the committee we again ari porth of almost 25 highly qualified individuals, and we really agree upon anything. >> sounds like congress. >> i know. [laughter] spent although we may not be highly qualified. >> i must say that we actually embrace this, and we use it, joe, we actually cherish the different members and their opinions, and it's true for this particular example as well. this was, in fact, a letter that was meant for an integral type of a process for us to understand in a retrospective fashion will be done and what we have come through. as such, i view it as a very constructive type of a communication. it was unf

keim and dr.ially a confidential letter and then was leaked from michael osterholm in his criticism of the nsabb decisions. and to some extent, not totally reflected by dr. inglesby but also dr. inglesby expressing some decision. dr. keim, why don't you begin? >> so, first off on the committee we again are you bored of almost 2500 or five individuals. we really agree on anything. >> sounds like congress. [laughter] >> i know. spent although we may not be highly qualified. >> i must say that we actually embrace this dissent, and we use it, we actually cherish the different members and their opinions, and it's true for this particular example as well. i did, this was, in fact, a letter that was meant for an integral type of the process for us to understand in a retrospective fashion what we've done and what we've come through. as such it was, i could as a very constructive type of a communication. it was unfortunate it was late and it became part of the public dialogue. it makes it harder to have a

keim, the chair of that group, about the board's deliberations. importantly, the public attention and concern generated by this issue has triggered a voluntary moratorium or pause on this type of research on the part of the influenza research committee as well as a fresh look at how the u.s. government handles durc as manifested by a formalization of a governmentwide policy to address the issue. this policy which was released on march 29th, strengthens and formalizes ongoing efforts in durc oversight and is described in my written testimony. the ultimate goal of the nih in its embrace of this new policy is to ensure that the conduct and communication of research in this area remain transparent and open at the same time as the risk benefit ratio of such research clearly tips towards benefiting society. the public, which has a stake in the risks as well as in the benefits of such research deserves a rational and transparent explanation of how these decisions are made. the upcoming dialogue related to this policy certainly will be informative and hop

i have to say i agree with many of the things that doctor keim said. this is a strong board.ed my -- by what they might perceive as a bias. if you have an issue with something, you bring it up. the letter was sent to the executive secretary of the nsabb, doctor patterson. we have responded to everything in the letter. we would be more than happy to make that response available to you so that you could see the discussion. again, there were important issues about looking forward. there were several things in there that i disagree with. one of which was the concern about the security briefing. i have a great deal of trust that the director will tell us what we need to know. that is one example. the idea about picking up people who would -- we did not give any indication of people that he wanted to see that were not there. rather than go tit-for-tat, i have a general principles that were brought up, i agree with. i have to say that i disagree with many of the things in his letter. >> i appreciate that to directness and i thank you for it. do you have a reaction to doctor inglesby

the source says this went on for nearly three seasons that would be a federal keim if true. saints official calls the accusations 1,000% false. of course, it's just more bad news for who dat nation. the saints still dealing with fallout from bounty scandal. you will recall nfl officials say got cash bonus for injuring. suspended loomis for eight games in that mess. now there is this. fox report jonathan hunt is on it loomis and others are speaking about these accusations. they are like this is a load of it? >> we haven't actually seen mickey loomis since the report was aired by espn. he did send a very strongly worded email to the fox affiliate in new orleans which read, in part, this report on espn is absolutely false. it just didn't happen. by coincidence, the saints had already scheduled news conference today at which the allegations obviously came up with the interim coach offering a folsom defense of his general manager, listen. >> i'm not completely abreast of what's taken place or what's been said. i just know it's not true. i know what mickey has meant in my life and

keim? >> so i guess i would reiterate what tom just said, that the new policy and how it's implemented is going to be very key. one thing that i think was an important role that the nsabb played here was we are an independent body. we were nongovernment. >> right. >> i think it's very important that you have external eyes as part of this new policy. there are inherent conflicts of interest between the funding agencies and the investigators, and the investigators themselves. and what was a unique role that we played in this was, we were outside the small influenza research community, and we were independent of the funding agencies, and we were able to look at this in a way that i think is unique, and i think that's an important part to what needs to happen. >> i agree. dr. gerstein. >> well, thank you, senator. well, i go back to the original remarks i made that i think it's a very complex issue, it requires balancing outcomes. we don't want to do something precipitously that's going to have