Bill Overview
Title: NBACC Authorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Department of Homeland Security to designate a specified laboratory as the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC). It shall be the lead federal facility dedicated to defending the United States against biological threats. The NBACC may include the National Bioforensic Analysis Center and the National Biological Threat Characterization Center. The NBACC shall engage in specified activities, including conducting studies and experiments to better understand current and future biological threats and hazards and pandemics; providing the scientific data required to assess vulnerabilities, conduct risk assessments, and determine potential impacts to guide the development of countermeasures; conducting and facilitating the technical forensic analysis and interpretation of materials recovered following a biological attack, or in other law enforcement investigations requiring evaluation of biological materials, in support of the appropriate lead federal agency; and coordinating with other national laboratories to enhance research capabilities, share lessons learned, and provide training more efficiently. The NBACC must engage in a continuously operating Work for Others program to make the unique biocontainment and bioforensic capabilities of the NBACC available to other federal agencies; and perform regularly scheduled and required maintenance of laboratory infrastructure, and procure mission-critical equipment and capability upgrades. The Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Technology shall conduct a mission needs assessment of the NBACC.
Sponsors: Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]
Target Audience
Population: People involved or impacted by enhanced biodefense and biological threat mitigation measures
Estimated Size: 500000
- This bill primarily impacts those involved in biodefense research, including scientists, researchers, and laboratory personnel.
- It also impacts public safety officials and policymakers who rely on data and analysis to create effective biodefensive strategies.
- By enhancing biodefense capabilities, it potentially impacts the general population by improving national preparedness for biological threats and pandemics.
- The bill directly influences other federal agencies that will utilize the NBACC's capabilities.
- Indirectly, healthcare workers and first responders may also be impacted as the enhanced capabilities of NBACC could lead to better preparedness and response protocols.
Reasoning
- This bill primarily impacts those involved in biodefense research, including scientists, researchers, and laboratory personnel.
- The general public may experience indirect benefits in terms of enhanced safety and improved pandemic preparedness, although individual awareness of these benefits might be low.
- Policy implementation indirectly affects healthcare workers and first responders by potentially improving preparedness and response strategies against biological threats.
- The policy's emphasis on research and data collection means its direct effects might be more pronounced in science and research communities, with less immediate impact on the general public.
Simulated Interviews
Biodefense Scientist (Maryland)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could enhance our research capabilities significantly.
- Funding specifically designated for bioforensics is promising, as it's a critical field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
State Public Health Official (Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced NBACC capabilities could improve our state’s response time in case of bioterrorism.
- The policy feels like a proactive step forward, but integration with state-level systems is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Medical Research Analyst (California)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could provide more datasets for my work on vaccines.
- However, the direct impact on my workflow is uncertain.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Emergency Room Nurse (New York)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing there's a focus on biological threats is somewhat reassuring, but it's still far removed from the ER.
- I'd like to see direct policies that affect hospital funding.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Environmental Health Scientist (Texas)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my concerns about environmental and biological security.
- The coordination between national labs could lead to groundbreaking research.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Federal Policy Advisor (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides essential backing to biodefense—a crucial aspect of national security.
- Coordination and data sharing are vital, but execution will determine success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Graduate Student in Virology (Colorado)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Aspiring to work in such enhanced facilities is motivating.
- Access to cutting-edge research is highly enticing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Biotechnologist (Ohio)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could potentially enable more innovative projects in the field.
- Inter-agency collaboration might streamline operations and reduce redundancy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Public Health Student (Illinois)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy underscores the importance of preventive measures in public health.
- Understanding its long-term impacts could be critical for future policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Homeland Security Consultant (Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy strengthens our national security framework against biological threats.
- Ensuring sustained funding and bipartisan support is key to long-term success.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 3: $155000000 (Low: $125000000, High: $185000000)
Year 5: $160000000 (Low: $130000000, High: $190000000)
Year 10: $170000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $200000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $290000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost estimate assumes regular ongoing funding for maintenance and capacity building as stated in the bill.
- Cost sharing from collaborations with other national laboratories could help defray some of the costs.
- Potential savings are derived from improved preparedness for biological threats which may mitigate future crises costs.
- The policy's impact on the United States is primarily through federal expenditure and improved national security, rather than direct revenue.
- Any unforeseen increase in biological threat levels could necessitate additional funding not accounted for in the current estimate.