, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The dumbest ever propaganda is that Russia’s blowing up Ukrainian bio labs and that’s supposed to save people, when that would spread all sorts of pathogens. What the US gave Ukraine was a pittance compare to what was given to Russia and most of it was under the pro-Russian President who was impeached subsequent to the Maidan protests.

Oh, wait, Russia did blow up part of its partially US funded bio lab, VECTOR, which dates from Soviet times. Note, below, that much of this funding took place under Putin, but appears to have stopped. https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2022/02/27/russia-vector-lab-has-smallpox-ebola-anthrax-etc-2019-lab-explosion-accident/

No one has asked if Covid 19 came from Russia’s September 2019 lab explosion, either. Questions have been raised about the Fort Detrick shutdown in the US but no mention of the Iranian lab director Sina Bavari. https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2022/03/07/russia-vector-bio-lab-researched-vaccine-for-the-original-sars-covid-vector-lab-exploded-in-september-2019-sars-covid-19-appears-in-china-in-october-or-november/

the U.S. Embassy made a statement in April 2020 to “set the record straight” on the activities and alleged hazards of biolabs in the eastern European country, declaring stories like that “disinformation spreading in some circles in Ukraine that mirrors Russian disinformation regarding the strong U.S.-Ukrainian partnership to reduce biological threats.https://lifenews.ge/fact-check-why-russian-claims-about-us-biolabs-in-ukraine-do-355838.html

Ukraine projects: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2022/03/08/us-funded-biological-threat-reduction-program-in-ukraine-most-projects-funded-under-pro-russian-president-yanukovych/

Putin’s and his cronies are very connected to Klaus Schwab and WEF: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2022/02/25/some-world-economic-forum-strategic-partners-will-surprise-include-russian-government-owned-controlled-companies/

A list of funded projects IN RUSSIA is found, below. One of the most interesting projects is “Design of Experimental Aerosol DNA-vaccine Preparation against Hantaviral Infection “, which sounds remarkably like some of Robert Malone’s patents-research and was a DTRA-SPONSORED RESEARCH PROJECTS IN RUSSIA See Malone CV showing his many spooky sounding connections and work with the DTRA: https://ia601408.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.flmd.395057/gov.uscourts.flmd.395057.30.6.pdf

Due to time constraints, we aren’t doing our usual formatting. The most interesting part is the Appendix, which has funding sorted by US Agency and with the amounts. The idea was supposedly to pay the Soviet bioweapons scientists, so they wouldn’t sell dangerous pathogens on the black market. Bio-scientists are apparently like expensive pets that have to be fed bunches of money on a routine basis or they might let lose a pathogen and cause a pandemic. It wasn’t just the early 2000s. Some of the projects were still ongoing in the 2010s:
“The Unique U.S.-Russian Relationship in Biological Science and Biotechnology
Recent Experience and Future Directions
Committee on U.S.-Russian Bioengagement; Development, Security, and Cooperation; Policy and Global Affairs; National Research Council; Russian Academy of Sciences.
Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2013 Mar 14.
… the Russian government is in the process of terminating Russia’s involvement in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program administered by the U.S. Department of Defense (often referred to as the Nunn-Lugar Program), the foreign assistance efforts of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and the activities of the International Science and Technology Center. These three programs have provided important pillars of U.S.-Russian bioengagement efforts for many years. But during the past several years the U.S. government has significantly reduced financial support for bioengagement through these and other channels in favor of competing budget priorities…

Following the splintering of the Soviet Union into 15 independent states, officials in Washington, Brussels, and other western capitals, in cooperation with Russian government counterparts, launched a number of bilateral and multilateral programs to help limit internal and external brain drains of Russian scientists whose salaries were no longer adequate for meeting even minimal needs. A particular concern was the possibility that Russian scientists with important nuclear, biological, chemical, or aerospace skills who were facing difficult economic problems might accept financial support from nefarious sources interested in using Russian expertise for dangerous purposes. At the same time, scientists in the West, as well as their colleagues in Russia, were apprehensive that without an infusion of financial resources from abroad, civilian-oriented capabilities of Russia’s scientific institutions that were of international significance would decline and eventually be lost.

In a few years, bioengagement reached unprecedented heights. The U.S. government provided substantial financing. Russian institutions that were interested in bioengagement provided important matching resources along with their extensive knowledge base. Since the mid-1990s, U.S. and Russian organizations have invested more than $1 billion in bioengagement, with the U.S. side covering most of the direct costs. The Russian side has covered many of the indirect expenses, such as costs of utilities, facility improvements, program management and documentation, and other overhead expenses, as well as provided most of the scientific expertise. Much of the funding and expertise has been linked to (a) proliferation concerns of both countries and (b) health components of the U.S. foreign assistance program.

Bioengagement had a profound effect in preserving important segments of the research infrastructure of Russia during times of severe economic difficulties. Thousands of Russian life scientists who participated in joint projects had new opportunities to contribute to (a) advancement of science, (b) applications of scientific findings leading to better and cheaper products and improved services that help meet the needs of the population, and (c) assessments of important health, agricultural, and environmental issues of regional and global significance. At the same time, hundreds of American scientists have benefited from collaborations with Russian colleagues whose expertise, experience, and access to territories, facilities, and data banks had been little known outside Russia.

Currently, Russia is reshaping its scientific infrastructure. Several hundred Russian biology-oriented research laboratories are now well equipped and staffed to work at an international level. Many more health, agricultural, and environmental facilities provide updated services with broad-ranging benefits for important segments of the population. Russian scientific publications in internationally accredited journals, while still very limited in number, are commanding increased scientific interest.

At the same time, emigration of outstanding young Russian scientists in recent years has been a serious loss that limits Russia’s scientific capabilities. Today a new generation of well-educated young professionals with up-to-date skills and interests is slowly filling important gaps in the availability of technical personnel in the country.

In most areas of the biological sciences and biotechnology, the United States is technologically more advanced than Russia. Also, scientists working in U.S. facilities, with broad access to modern equipment and to skilled technical support staffs, are generally able to work more efficiently than counterparts in Russia. This gap arises not only because science is better financed in the United States than in Russia but also because U.S. scientists have more experience in managing research activities that yield results suitable for application in a market economy.

Substantial financial support of U.S. science also (a) helps ensure stability of the technical workforce and (b) provides broad opportunities for international connectivity of scientific centers. Moreover, in the United States there has been a consistent focus on strengthening basic research capabilities. In this regard, an important U.S. priority has been providing opportunities for scientists in the early stages of their careers to become important participants in exploring unfolding fields of science.

In a number of subfields, Russian scientists are making contributions at the forefront of the life sciences. Russian achievements, when coupled with U.S. strengths, often offer important synergistic effects in advancing capabilities of both countries to work effectively in these subfields, such as enhancing understanding of the characteristics of the influenza A/H5N1 virus. When projects focus on conditions in specific geographical environments, each country has unique experience that combined may offer remarkable scientific insights that would not otherwise be possible.

The investments of the United States and Russia in bioengagement during the past 15 years are paying off in important ways. Communications between counterparts have been commonplace, addressing not only the details of joint projects but also broader professional interests. As a result, the development of unique research approaches has been frequent, and research findings of joint efforts have been significant…

Significant public- and private-sector organizations in the two countries are now well positioned for and interested in intensifying research collaboration that would benefit both countries. Also, following a long period of hesitation, a few entrepreneurial investors in the two countries have taken initial steps to develop joint commercial opportunities in the biotechnology marketplace.

Of particular significance has been “working together” in the development of effective approaches for (a) ensuring biosafety when handling dangerous pathogens, (b) improving disease surveillance capabilities, (c) reducing the prevalence of agricultural pests and pathogens, and (d) assessing and reducing environmental problems. American and Russian colleagues are now well prepared to continue their cooperative efforts more effectively than during their initial pioneering experiences. The likely positive impacts of collaboration certainly deserve appropriate recognition by the two governments in their policy and budget decisions affecting bioengagement.

At the policy level, the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission established in 2009 has provided an important mechanism for encouraging political support of new bioengagement initiatives, as well as for coordinating and facilitating ongoing collaborative programs.

As previously noted, during the past several years, there has been a steady decline in the extent of bioengagement. The United States has shifted much of its financial resources from programs centered in Russia to programs sited in other areas of the world. The Russian government has only slowly followed through on long-standing commitments to share more fully the direct costs of bioengagement activities that benefit both countries.

Meanwhile, the Russian government has initiated a number of new programs, with mandates for international outreach. One priority area is the biomedical field. The other priorities are nuclear, space, information, and energy technologies. Activities of special interest are the following:
* The Skolkovo Foundation is supporting the establishment of a flagship high-technology education-research complex headquartered near Moscow, which is being designed with the participation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
* The Skolkovo Foundation also provides research and development grants in the five priority areas listed above, primarily to Russian companies, with occasional involvement of Russian institutes and universities working with international partners. These partners receive tax exemptions, customs privileges, and other incentives that encourage their participation.
* Rusnano, which is supported by the Russian government, is providing grants and contracts to Russian companies and also at times to institutes and universities for activities that are designed to lead to near-term commercialization of nanobiotechnologies, drawing on the experience of the United States and other countries when considered appropriate.
* Russian government-supported venture funds are investing in U.S.-based start-up and established companies, including biotech companies, which in turn will engage both commercial and research organizations based in Russia.
* The Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy, heralded as the country’s first national laboratory, is expanding its new nanobiology facilities and is seeking relationships with U.S. organizations with common interests.
* In April 2012, the Russian government issued a broad decree calling for establishment of a framework for a national biomedical program (Pharma 2020), although the funding to carry out this program has been uncertain.

It is too soon to assess the importance and impact of these recent activities, which are oriented to promoting Russian scientific and economic interests, including expansion of opportunities for international cooperation. The new types of Russian investments in biomedical activities are planned to reach levels in the tens of millions of dollars annually, and investments are beginning. A number of Russia’s leading scientists, including well-known biologists, are participating in the programs. Significantly, the political support of the Russian government for these activities during the next several years seems reasonably assured, which should provide Russia with opportunities to leverage its own investments through international collaboration.

These and other biology-related outreach initiatives of the Russian government emphasize biomedical applications, with most of the government funding provided to companies, including state-owned companies, and to applied research laboratories and service organizations. The basic research capabilities of the country—particularly the capabilities of laboratories that are organizationally linked to the Russian science academies, universities, and research branches of several ministries—also need strengthening, with international collaboration an important mechanism to achieve upgraded capabilities. Leading Russian biologists recognize that a strong and broad basic science infrastructure is essential for development of new drugs, vaccines, and other medical products. But there are skeptics in both Russia and the United States who are not convinced that a broadening of basic research in Russia, in and of itself, will contribute in a significant manner to the “return” on investments made by the Russian government.

Several less ambitious Russian government initiatives have recently been directed toward strengthening research at universities. They include (a) the designation of 29 elite universities as “research universities,” with access to special governmental funding, including several universities with well-developed programs in the life sciences and (b) 79 megagrants of $5 million each over 3 years for establishing new research laboratories within the universities. These laboratories are to be led by internationally respected scientists from within Russia and from abroad. However, relatively few of the initiatives targeted on universities have been directed to the life sciences thus far.

In short, in Russia’s efforts to improve contributions of the life sciences to economic and social progress, the government has not given adequate priority to strengthening basic research capabilities. To be economically competitive in the long run, public- and private-sector organizations involved in manufacturing and in providing services need a steady infusion of novel ideas and new talent from the nation’s basic science and higher education institutions. The traditional focus by the U.S. government on U.S. universities that support the life sciences is now paying off, both in basic and applied science. Meanwhile, Russia continues the important task of strengthening its medical education and applied research complexes. Thus, both countries can gain from one another through bioengagement, although the approach should be tailored to the specific interests and capabilities of the participating institutions.

Of special interest in both countries is nurturing the capabilities of young scientists. Many highly creative young Russian life scientists are now remaining in Russia, where some are attracted by financial incentives offered by emerging and expanding biotech companies. Such newly minted industrial researchers are becoming very focused on near-term applications of existing technologies. This orientation is understandable. But comparable applications of the talents of young scientists in searching for fundamentally new approaches are also important, and the government should strongly support their research activities.

Meanwhile, many U.S. and other western organizations are hesitant to become financially involved in the new biotechnology activities in Russia. A long history of problems in ensuring a business-friendly environment in Russia that provides appropriate protection for financial investments from abroad does not fade easily from memory. Fortunately, Russian partners with good understanding of the importance of responsible handling of international investments are now emerging; and U.S. institutions should be alert to bioengagement opportunities that will avoid difficulties of the past.

Also of significance are Russian capabilities in the life sciences that are not directed to biomedical applications. Hundreds of well-respected university and academy centers direct their attention to basic issues in the agricultural and environmental sciences, often on skimpy budgets. In recent years, opportunities for cooperation in these fields have been manyfold with considerable payoffs for the participants. They continue to deserve attention by organizations in the two countries that have access to funds for outreach programs.

Against a background of declining U.S. financial support for bioengagement programs, strengthened capabilities of Russian institutions to be effective partners, and greater Russian government interest in biotechnology, increased support for future bioengagement deserves careful consideration. Common scientific interests, complementary activities under different but related geographical circumstances, and unprecedented experience of specialists from the two countries in effectively working together for more than a decade are unrivaled. They provide compelling reasons for revitalizing bioengagement activities that include, but extend beyond, a biomedical focus…

The two governments have decided to terminate most security-driven bioengagement activities, and particularly the enhancement of physical protection of biological materials in Russia, given the strengthened capabilities of the country to address its own internal security concerns. However, the governments recognize that the prevention of proliferation has many dimensions, including providing scientists with defense-related backgrounds with the skills and opportunities to pursue stable civilian-oriented career tracks. Joint programs often indirectly enhance biosecurity, while advancing science. Such programs also can (a) emphasize responsible science when dealing with uncertain technologies in fields such as synthetic biology, (b) encourage greater emphasis on bioethics, and (c) strengthen biosafety.

In these areas, U.S. and Russian institutions can and should continue to demonstrate how bioengagement contributes to biosecurity. (For the purposes of this report, biosafety is defined as: “Prevention of exposure to harmful biological agents and measures taken to this end.” Biosecurity is defined as: “A complex of measures that include biosafety, while also providing for physical safekeeping of biomaterials and for prevention of inappropriate use of
biomaterials.”) No other countries have moved forward from such a pervasive past of suspicion and conflicting objectives than those that characterized U.S.-Russian relations in the early 1990s to an era of confidence and mutuality of program goals that have characterized the U.S.-Russian relationship in recent years…” https://web.archive.org/web/20220210102515/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201545/

Appendix C
Activities in Bioengagement of Selected U.S. Government Departments and Agencies

Appendix C
Activities in Bioengagement of Selected U.S. Government Departments and Agencies

Appendix C.1. Department of State
Overarching Goal in Russia and Elsewhere: Work with governments and other stakeholders to build sustainable capacity for biosecurity, biosafety, disease surveillance, and cooperative scientific research.

Recent History of Department’s Interests in Biosecurity Activities in Russia
• Support of Nunn-Lugar Initiative: 1991
• Biological Arms Control Activities: 1992 (continuation of earlier activities)
• Policy/Program Direction of International Science and Technology Center (ISTC): 1994
• Biotechnology Engagement Program: 1999
• BioIndustry Initiative: 2002
• Bioengagement Program: 2006 to present
SOURCE: Information provided by Department of State, October 2011 and July 2012.

Appendix C.2. Defense Threat Reduction Agency
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) began to expand bioengagement with Russian institutions in 1997. Initially, the focus was on eight pilot research projects, developed with the assistance of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. These pilot projects were sited at the State Research Center for Virology and Biotechnology Vector (Koltsovo) and State Research Center for Applied Microbiology (Obolensk). A joint U.S.-Russian conference in Kirov during the development of the pilot projects broadened subsequent Russian participation in collaborative activities to include a number of other research institutions as well. At the outset, most of the Russian institutions were components of Biopreparat, a research-industrial complex, which was in the process of redirecting activities that had supported the Soviet-era biological defense program to civilian-oriented activities.

As of 2000, DTRA had committed more than $30 million to bilateral biology-related engagement activities. By 2011, the total commitment had increased to $71.2 million, although the annual commitments had steadily declined to about $1.5 million in 2011. Overall, about 9 percent of DTRA’s global bioengagement program has been focused on Russia despite the much larger percentages in the early years. The activities supported in Russia have been primarily (a) research projects to characterize especially dangerous pathogens and to prevent and develop therapies for infections (see below) and (b) upgrades of security and safety conditions at selected Russian institutions, which handle large quantities of dangerous pathogens. Such upgrades have included consolidation of pathogens in secure areas, construction of fences around facilities, improved security at entry portals into laboratory complexes, and safety precautions within laboratories. While DTRA was interested for a number of years in working with Russian institutions to upgrade disease surveillance systems in Russian (the TADR program), this activity was not undertaken due to difficulties in reaching agreement on the details of proposals for cooperation.

By 2010, DTRA had shifted its emphasis to support of linkages of (a) U.S. universities and other institutions with (b) Russian universities and institutes. Recent projects have supported joint research to address topics such as the following:
* Mapping of the microbial biosphere.
* Relationship of plant pathogens and zoonotic pathogens.
* Understanding of persistent relationships between humans and pathogens.
* New applications of synthetic biology.
* Host response to infectious diseases.

Engagement over many years has benefited many scientists and institutions on both sides of the ocean. As to biosecurity/biosafety upgrades, visitors to Russian institutions that have participated in cooperative efforts have almost always commented positively on the much improved approaches to ensuring the security and safety throughout the institutions. As to research projects that have been fully implemented, U.S. partners give high marks to their Russian colleagues who have served as the project managers in various universities and institutes. The American participants have been generally pleased with opportunities to benefit from the work of Russian researchers, who have quickly mastered new techniques and produced results of considerable interest to the international scientific community.

DTRA has committed to continuing engagement with Russian organizations through pursuit of shared scientific interests, recognizing that key Russian ministries do not consider the Department of Defense a legitimate partner in addressing civilian biological concerns. DTRA plans to support activities of other U.S. organizations that are more acceptable partners.

DTRA considers the following reasons as important motivation for U.S.-Russian engagement:
* Russia and U.S. cooperation in combating infectious diseases and potential bioterrorist acts sends a message of warning to potential terrorist groups.
* Transparency in research advances global progress toward dealing with infectious diseases and builds trust among countries.

DTRA has articulated the following characteristics of its future approaches:
* Engagement is to be based on cutting-edge research that responds to key scientific questions.
* Partnerships will engage leading U.S. scientists who will attract broad interest in collaborations.
* Science and scientific outcomes will drive bilateral dialogues and activities.
* Partnerships are in and of themselves a threat-reduction metric since they build mutual confidence and serve as verification mechanisms.
* New business models will be developed that are consistent with the needs of DTRA.

DTRA, working with Russian partners, developed the following metrics in 2008, which at times can be helpful in assessing biosafety and biosecurity efforts:
* Enhance capabilities to prevent theft.
* Regulations
* Biosafety guidelines
* Facility plans
* Biosafety and security standards
* Biosafety and security upgrades at institutes
* Biosecurity event notification
* Biosafety event notification
* Enhance capabilities to detect events
* Sharing of data on especially dangerous pathogens
* Reporting laboratory results to responsible officials
* Providing human-related reports to WHO
* Providing animal-related reports to OIE
* Sharing of case data
* Reporting epidemiological data
* Reporting laboratory results
* Personal health data reported to WHO
* Animal diseases reported to OIE
* Investigations of incidents involving especially dangerous pathogens
* Appropriate sample collection
* Capabilities to diagnose especially dangerous pathogens
* Strain characterization of plant pathogens
* Appropriate sample transportation
* Sustainability
* Testing of trainee test results
* Miscellaneous
* Credible research results
* Contribution to efforts of international scientific community
* Biosafety guidelines

Genome of Monkeypox Virus (ISTC #884-2p) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo
* Project Agreement Date: 10/8/99
* Projected End Date: 10/8/01
* Cost: $362,880
Key Findings: A long-range PCR approach was used to construct clones for the complete genomes of different strains of pox viruses, including variola, to do comparative sequencing that establishes relationships among various viral forms. The work established that monkeypox is less related to variola than are other pox viruses, suggesting that the origin of the monkeypox disease is not related to smallpox.

Development of Liposomal Forms of IgAs for Prophylaxis and Treatment of Y. pestis (ISTC #1515) State Research Center for Highly Pure Biopreparations, St. Petersburg
* Project Agreement Date: 08/01/02
* Projected End Date: 10/31/05
* Budget: $657,251
Key Findings: Protection is provided to mice by aerosolized liposomal-delivered IgA antibodies directed towards the F1 antigen before challenge with 104 Y. pestis. No protection was observed if the aerosol was delivered after challenge.

Design of Experimental Aerosol DNA-vaccine Preparation against Hantaviral Infection (ISTC #1813) Research Center for Toxicology and Hygienic Regulation of Biopreparations, Serpukhov
* Project Agreement Date: 06/01/01
* Projected End Date: 07/31/05
* Budget: $599,000
Key Findings: Genes from small and medium segments of the hantaviral genome were cloned into plasmids. These plasmids were complexed with polyethylenimine (PEI) and delivered to mice in an aerosol form. Antibodies to the plasmid encoded antigens were measured. It was found that antibody production was best against antigens from the medium segment and that the efficiency depended upon the presence of immunomodulators.

Genetic Identification of Crimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF) Virus Isolates Circulating in Countries of the Region (ISTC #1291.2) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo
* Project Agreement Date: 08/01/00
* Projected End Date: 10/31/05
* Budget: $604,645
Key Findings: A unique variable section in the genome encoded by the L-segment of CCHF was explored as a possible marker for geographically distinct isolates of the virus. The variable region was studied in 16 different isolates. The variable segment was found to encode a region between the main structural sequences involving the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase.

Studying the Role of Yersinia pestis Lipopolysaccharides Structural Organization in the Development of Immune Preparations (ISTC#1197) Zelinsky Institute of Organic Chemistry, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/01
* Projected End Date: 09/30/05
* Budget: $943,408
Key Findings: This project has made major contributions to the understanding of the structures of lipopolysaccharide (LPS) structures and their biological activities. The work was the first to describe temperature dependent structural alterations in LPS structure that correlate with the bacterium’s life in the insect vector and mammalian host. The investigators have developed a comprehensive data base on LPS and other glycostructure from the worldwide literature on this topic (http://www.glyco.ac. ru/bcsdb/start.shtml).

Immunofiltration and Immunoenzyme Express Diagnostic Test Kits for Determination of Infectious Diseases (ISTC #1233.2) Research Center for Molecular Diagnostics and Therapy, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 03/01/00
* Projected End Date: 08/31/05
* Budget: $972,354
Key Findings: Presentation was made of a simple, fast, sensitive, and universal immunoassay method for detection of a broad range of infectious diseases, including diseases caused by agents with defense applications. The basis of this novel concept was microfiltration, using micro-column flow immunoassays using analytical markers of different types and nature as reporters. In the course of this project, novel monoclonal antibodies against unique epitopes biological warfare agents were developed, as well as a sensitive method of detecting uniform magnetic microspheres.

A Sampler for Detection and Express-Identification of Airborne Microorganisms and Implications for Counterterrorism (ISTC #1487) Research Center for Toxicology and Hygienic Regulation of Biopreparations, Serpukhov
* Project Agreement Date: 07/01/00
* Projected End Date: 03/31/06
* Budget: $680,000
Key Findings: A unique sampler capable of collection and preservation of the viability of biological organisms from the air was designed, fabricated, and tested. The collector is based on a cyclone collector technology applied to a portable, personalized collector. Comparative testing of these devices has been carried out in the United States, and the results have proven the superiority of the design. DTRA’s Visiting Scientist program has contributed significantly to the design and testing of these devices. Various detection technologies can also be adapted for use with the collectors.

Search for Antivirals for Treating and Prevention of Orthopoxviral Infections Including Smallpox (ISTC #1989) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo
* Project Agreement Date: 3/01/01
* Project End Date: 3/13/03
* Buidget: $1,433,374 (co-funded with Department of Health and Human Services)
Key Findings: Utilization of the extensive chemistry capabilities in Russia and the coupling of this technology with the unique testing facilities at Vector have resulted in the identification of a collection of new compounds that show antiviral activities when tested against pox viruses. These compounds are being evaluated in the United States against variola viruses. A movie of an expedition into Northern Siberia to collect smallpox samples from the bodies of people suspected of death from smallpox was developed. Such expeditions have resulted in a number of samples that contained DNA, but no viable viruses.

Combinatorial Antibody Libraries of Orthopoxviruses (ISTC #1638) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo
* Project Agreement Date: 9/05/01
* Project End Date: 9/05/03
* Budget: $217,296 (co-funded with Department of Health and Human Services)
Key Findings: Project resulted in a new phage display combinatorial library derived from the lymphocytes of an individual vaccinated with vaccinia virus. The new library contained phage, which showed different reactivities to vaccinia, cowpox, and ectromelia viruses. These antibodies were thus species-specific. Neutralization tests were carried out with these antibodies, and they were shown to be positive. In addition, these antibodies are active in western blots allowing the identification of specific targets for these phage displayed humanized antibodies.

Conservation of Genetic Material and Study of Genomic Structure of Different Variola Virus Strains (ISTC #1987) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo
* Project Agreement Date: 3/01/01
* Project End Date: 6/13/03
* Cost: $1,336,913 (co-funded with Department of Health and Human Services)
Key Findings: This project has made major contributions to understanding the interrelationships of different pox viruses. The eradication of smallpox as a disease of concern has left the medical community with the question as to whether this virus could reemerge from another pox virus. Also, questions about the recent appearance of monkey pox virus as a potential human disease has added to this concern. Comparative sequence studies performed by Vector and Centers for Disease Control scientists have shown that the large number of sequence differences between variola and monkey pox suggest that emergence of a smallpox-type disease from monkey pox is not likely. Variola is, in fact, more closely related to other pox viruses, such as camel pox.

Magnetometric Immunosensor for Multi-Pathogen Continuous Monitoring (ISTC #2129) Research Center for Molecular Diagnostics and Therapy, Moscow, and Institute of Physics, Moscow Medical Academy
* Project Agreement Date: 08/01/05
* Projected End Date: 07/31/2007
* Budget: $496,906
Key Findings: This project developed a magnetometric immunosensor for detection of three pathogens and one toxin: B. anthracis, Y. pestis, F. tularensis and Clostridium botulinum toxin A. This detection system is portable and has increased sensitivity and speed over conventional detection techniques. The system has been field tested for environmental sampling.

Upgrade of the Security and Safety Systems to Protect Biological Material at the All-Russian Research Institute of Phytopathology (ISTC #2685) All-Russia Scientific Research Institute for Phytopathology (VNIIF), Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences
* Project Agreement Date: 09/01/04
* Projected End Date: 06/30/13
* Budget: $2,929,404.91
Key Findings: This project has made major contributions in providing a safer and more secure working environment for VNIIF scientists, researchers, and visitors, ensuring that phytopathogens and the specialists who work with them are properly protected, along with protection of the environment. The research aspect of this project has contributed to determinations of the pathogenic and toxic properties of collection strains of fungi responsible for barley and wheat Root Rot, Snow Mold, and Fusarium Head Blight, which could negatively impact Russia’s food and agriculture industries.

NOTE: Other DOD components such as DARPA, have also supported bioengagement. Information provided by DTRA and ISTC, February 2012.

Appendix C.3. Department of Energy
Since 1994, the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Global Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (GIPP) and its predecessor programs within the Department of Energy have engaged Russian scientists with experience in the defense sector and other technical specialists in civilian activities aimed at advancing global security and nonproliferation objectives. The program has financed more than 100 projects at a cost of $40–45 million in the biosciences in Russia. In 2011, funding levels were at or near their lowest level since the program began. Examples of projects that the department considered successful are set forth below.

Project: Microbial Diversity for Novel Biotechnology Applications
Russian and Other Partner Institutes:
* Institute for Volcanology and Seismology, Russian Academy of Sciences Far-East Branch, Petropavlovsk-KamchatkaCenter for Ecological Research and BioResources Development, Pushchino Durmishidze Institute for Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Tbilisi, Georgia Institute for Microbiology, National Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan, Tashkent, Uzbekistan
* U.S. Industry Partner:
* Diversa Corporation, San Diego, California
The project established a multiyear program of rational bioprospecting on the Kamchatka Peninsula. Environmental samples were exported to the United States by the Center for Ecological Research and BioResources Development to the industrial partner, Diversa Corporation. This multiyear program resulted in a large number of novel microorganisms that were later screened by Diversa researchers, a number of which were used in other GIPP projects that target transgenic plant generation for crop protection. Diversa’s most successful product was the laccase enzyme that it sold to the paper pulp industry to replace bleach in whitening of paper pulp.

Project: Development of Recombinant Luciferase and Related Reagents for Portable Photometric Reagents
Russian Institutes:
* Gamaleya Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, Moscow Moscow State University
* Industry Partner:
* New Horizon Diagnostics Corp. (NHD)
The project resulted in the establishment of the company Lumtek LLC in 2004. Lumtek was tasked by NHD to improve current bioluminescence-based detector hardware and reagents for a range of commercial detectors. Lumtek successfully designed and manufactured a new Russian Luminometer. Lumtek continues to manufacture test systems, including a Luminometer device and reagents for biocontamination express control for customers in Russia, Ukraine, and France. The target markets are food industry, ecology, and medicine. In May 2012, NHD initiated quality control and assurance procedures of the Lumtek reagents and Luminometers. If successful, Lumtek plans to sell its products to NHD, and NHD will market them in the United States. NHD would like to contract with Lumtek for production of at least 100,000 test systems and 100–300 Luminometers per year.

Combined Projects: Development of Microbiological Methods for Oil Pollution Decontamination in Soil and Water Surface and Symbiont—Plant Growth Regulator
Russian Institute:
* JSC Biochimmash
* Industry Partner:
* Dye Seed Ranch Inc.
An oil biodegradant prep was developed and successfully tested in Montana during this 3-year project. Dye Seed supported the trials conducted by Biochimmash in Siberia and other parts of Russia and reported the results of the trials to the Montana Gas and Oil Committee. Under the Plant Growth Regulator project, Biochimmash developed a plant growth accelerator that shortens the cultivation period of agricultural products and grass. After successful completion of the project, Biochimmash renovated the pilot production facility to manufacture the oil-degrading prep and plant growth accelerator (entitled MICEFIT). After renovation, the pilot plant became the spin-off company Bioprogress that leases the facility and equipment from Biochimmash. Bioprogress produces the oil biodegradant and plant growth accelerator and sells it to oil-production companies and farmers. Bioprogress produces other natural compounds as well. Bioprogress’s revenue has been steadily growing since 2006. Recently, Biochimmash received an invitation from NineSigma Inc. (Cleveland, Ohio) to submit a proposal for cultivation technologies that shorten the cultivation period of agricultural products.

Project: Development of Effective Decontamination Methods and Technology
Russian Institute:
* Institute of Highly Pure Biopreparations Research Institute of Influenza
* Industry Partner:
* Isonics
Under this project, the biodecontamination method entitled PAEROSOL was developed. Two patents are pending. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) sponsored the validation of PAEROSOL at the Madigan Army Medical Center for its effectiveness in the decontamination of hospital pathogens that cause cross-contamination of patients and result in high morbidity and mortality. Estimates of the resulting costs to deal with hospital infections range from $4.5 billion to $11 billion annually. The validation was successful. A U.S. laboratory is developing a proposal to apply PAEROSOL for the decontamination of military vehicles, cargo, etc., that are returned from Afghanistan and the other military theaters. PAEROSOL will ensure appropriate disinfection to prevent transmission of dangerous human, animal, and plant pathogens to the United States. According to specialists at Cornell University, importation of invasive species costs the United States more than $138 billion each year.

Project: Antibody-Based Diagnostics and Production for High Consequence Animal Pathogens
Russian and Other Partner Institutes:
* Russian State Diagnostic and Prevention Center for Human and Animal Diseases (DPC)
* Ivanovsky Virology Institute
* All-Russia Institute for Animal Health
* Institute of Experimental and Clinical Veterinary Medicine of the Ukrainian Academy of Agricultural Sciences
* Gamaleya Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology
* Industry Partner:
* New Horizon Diagnostics (NHD)
This project produced novel antigen and monoclonal systems capable of detecting an array of high-consequence animal pathogens including foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), African swine fever, H5N1 avian influenza, and prion diseases, among others. Three invention disclosures and one patent application were filed for novel reagents capable of diagnosing Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome (PRRS), FMD, and prion diseases. The diagnostic kits and treatments being jointly developed and marketed by DPC and NHD are antibody based and designed to handle food and environmental matrices as well as antibody and enzyme treatments for animal diseases. DPC is also producing and marketing the reagents for diagnosing several diseases in Russia through a partnership with NARVAC, Inc. (Russia). NHD has received funding from the U.S. Pork Producers Association to complete development and validation of a diagnostic kit for PRRS.

Project: Fluorinated Analogs of Bioactive Garlic Components
Russian Institute:
* State Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology (SRIOCT)
* Industry Partner:
* LifeTime Pharmaceuticals
The focus of the project was to develop novel anticancer agents from garlic extracts and individual components known to exert a pronounced cytotoxic activity against malignant cells. The SRIOCT team designed and synthesized over 60 garlic analogs. Four were eventually selected for further development by SRIOCT and the commercial partner in collaboration with the U.S. National Cancer Institute, because they are stable and easily synthesized and demonstrated high antitumor activity. The project yielded four invention disclosures.

Project: Anti-Cytokine Antibodies: Immune-Mediated Disease
Russian Institutes:
* Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry
* State Institute of Genetics
* Institute of Highly Pure Biopreparations
* Russian Research Center for Molecular Diagnostics and Therapeutics
* Industry Partner:
* Advanced Biotherapy Concepts, Inc. (ABCI)
In this project, genetically engineered monoclonal antibodies were used to address efficacy and reactivity issues associated with antibody-based therapies, the rationale being that humanized antibody-based therapies would reduce severe immune reactions during repeated treatment, thereby increasing the life of the therapy when compared to mouse-based therapy systems. This project resulted in four invention disclosures. ABCI has sold its patent portfolio for proprietary antibody treatments that remove or neutralize certain interferons and other key cytokines induced by alpha interferon to another U.S. company that is currently negotiating with SOI and a national laboratory regarding further product development and clinical trials.

Project: Antibody-Based Diagnostics
Russian Institutes:
* Russian Research Center for Molecular Diagnostics and Therapeutics (RCMDT)
* Russian State Diagnostic and Prevention Center for Human and Animal Diseases (DPC)
* Gamaleya Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology
* State Research Center for Applied Microbiology (SRCAM)
* Industry Partner:
* New Horizon Diagnostics (NHD)
The project produced novel antigen and monoclonal systems capable of detecting an array of high-consequence pathogens, including anthrax, plague, tularemia, E. coli, Salmonella, and botulinum toxin, among others. Two patent applications were filed for novel reagents capable of detecting E. coli and botulinum toxins. The diagnostic kits being jointly produced and marketed by RCMDT, DPC, and NHD in Russia and the FSU are antibody-based and designed to handle food and environmental matrices. Test kits for anthrax, plague, and tularemia were independently validated by SRCAM. RCMDT is also producing and marketing these reagents in Russia and the European Community through joint stock companies in which the principle investigator maintains a business interest. NHD has received funding from the Department of Defense and Environmental Protection Agency to continue development of kits for biodefense and food and water safety applications, respectively.

United States Industry Coalition
Since 1994, GIPP and its predecessor organizations have also worked with the United States Industry Coalition (USIC) to direct investment toward Russia as well as other states that emerged from the USSR. The mission has been to engage Soviet-era defense scientists and engineers in sustainable and gainful civilian work. Over 150 U.S. companies have worked with 110 institutes in Russia, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine, with investments totaling over $280 million—approximately a third of this applied within the biological sciences. Investments are profit driven, with profits accruing for both participants. These projects have resulted in diverse commercial successes at impressive rates, including efforts in the fields of radioisotope medical therapy, rapid diagnostics, drug development, crop projection, biodecontamination, vaccine delivery, and wound healing.

USIC reports that the projects related to the biological sciences are estimated to have had the following impacts:
* Created over 700 sustained jobs.
* Generated over $70 million in revenue for U.S. and FSU companies.
* Attracted approximately $100 million in outside investment.
* Created or sustained approximately a dozen independent and joint U.S.-FSU businesses.
* Resulted in over 30 U.S., Russian, and other patent applications.
* Achieved a 25 percent commercialization rate, with a further 24 percent resulting in substantial business achievements (e.g., royalties, grants, investment, etc.)
* Approximately 30 projects resulted in follow-on activity.
These early achievements are indicative of the impact of the program in bringing technological developments to commercially successful endpoints.
The United States Industry Coalition has identified a few challenges for moving forward with this work, namely adaptation to an evolving Russia and developing viable cost-sharing models. Quantifying and valuing cost-sharing are also challenging.
SOURCE: Information provided by Department of Energy, February 2012.

Appendix C.4. Department of Health and Human Services (Biotechnology Engagement Program)

Projects facilitated by the International Science and Technology Center included the following:
Production and Specific Properties of IgA Protease Secreted by Neisseria Meningitidis (ISTC No. 0631-2p) State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Obolensk, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 07/01/2003
* Projected End Date: 03/24/2009
* Budget: $312,307
Study of the Genetic and Serologic Diversity of Hantaviruses in the Asian Part of Russia (ISTC No. 0805-2p) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region, Institute of Systematics and Ecology of Animals, Novosibirsk, Khabarovsk Antiplague Station, Khabarovsk
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2007
* Projected End Date: 10/08/2010
* Budget: $392,650

The Study of Prevalence, Genotype Distribution and Molecular Variability of Isolates of Hepatitis C Virus in the Siberian Part of Russia (ISTC No. 1637) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2000
* Projected End Date: 04/19/2006
* Budget: $692,768

Combinatorial Antibody Libraries to Orthopoxviruses (ISTC No. 1638) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector/Research Institute of Bio-engineering, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 08/01/2001
* Projected End Date: 07/15/2011
* Budget: $227,294 (cofunded with Defense Threat Reduction Agency)

Drug-resistant Strains of M. Tuberculosis: Genetic Analysis (ISTC No. 1642) State Research Center for Applied Microbiology, Obolensk, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2000
* Projected End Date: 04/16/2003
* Budget: $102,500

Development and Certification of National Reference and Control Hbsag Serum Panels for Evaluating the Quality of Hepatitis B Diagnostics in Russia (ISTC No. 1803) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk reg., Tarasevich State Standardization and Control of Medical Preparations Research Institute, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2002
* Projected End Date: 02/07/2007
* Budget: $351,320

Comparative Mycobacterial Genomics: Unraveling Differences of Functional and Diagnostic Importance by Subtractive Hybridization (ISTC No. 1845) State Research Center for Applied Microbiology, Obolensk, Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2000
* Projected End Date: 03/13/2003
* Budget: $105,000

Development of Technology for Production of Nutrient Media for Isolation and Drug Susceptibility Testing of M. Tuberculosis (ISTC No. 1846) State Research Center for Applied Microbiology, Obolensk
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2000
* Projected End Date: 11/13/2003
* Budget: $242,000

Development of Legal, Organizational and Scientific Concept for the Establishment of the International Center for the Study of Emerging and Reemerging Infectious Diseases (ICERID) at the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector (ISTC No. 1884) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2000
* Projected End Date: 04/19/2005
* Budget: $271,262

Epidemiology of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Western Siberia: Determining the Distribution and Genetic Characteristics of Drug-Resistant Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Isolates in the Novosibirsk Oblast (ISTC No. 1980) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk reg., Boreskov Institute of Catalysis/Novosibirsk Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Akademgorodok, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2002
* Projected End Date: 01/16/2008
* Budget: $445,000

Conservation of Genetic Material and Study of Genomic Structure of Different Variola Virus Strains (ISTC No. 1987) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 03/01/2001
* Projected End Date: 07/15/2011
* Budget: $1,336,913 (cofunded with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency)

Search for Antivirals for Treating and Prevention of Orthopoxviral Infections Including Smallpox (ISTC No. 1989) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Moscow, Ural State Technical University, Ekaterinburg
* Project Agreement Date: 03/01/2001
* Projected End Date: 07/15/2011
* Budget: $1,368,362.05 (cofunded with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency)

Biochip Application in TB Diagnostics for Fast Discrimination and Strain Typing of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Russia (ISTC No. 2019)
Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Moscow, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2001
* Projected End Date: 11/9/2005
* Budget: $678,000

The Development and Application of Methods to Control Emergent/Re-emergent Vector-Borne Diseases in Russia and the USA with Special Attention to West Nile Encephalitis (ISTC No. 2087) Ivanovsky Institute of Virology, Moscow, Central Research Institute of Epidemiology, Moscow, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2001
* Projected End Date: 04/27/2006
* Budget: $1,051,365

Development of Rabies Control System in Wild Carnivora and Stray Dogs in the Russian Federation (ISTC No. 2090) Pokrov Plant of Biopreparations, Pokrov, Vladimir region
* Project Agreement Date: 07/01/2004
* Projected End Date: 05/20/2009
* Budget: $618,520

Designing, Engineering and Biological Testing of Multi-CTL Epitope-Based DNA Vaccine Against HIV-1 (ISTC No. 2153) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2002
* Projected End Date: 12/21/2005
* Budget: $257,458

Diversity of Strains of Measles and Mumps Viruses in Russia (ISTC No. 2168) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2002
* Projected End Date: 01/16/2008
* Budget: $1,317,400
Synthesis, Characterization of Targeted Delivery to Macrophage Receptors and Evaluation of Anti-Tubercular Activity of the Conjugates of Anti-Tubercular Antibiotics with Ligands to Macrophage (ISTC No. 2174) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region, Novosibirsk Institute of Tuberculosis, Novosibirsk
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2002
* Projected End Date: 07/08/2006
* Budget: $450,000

A Therapeutic Autologous HIV Vaccine on the Basis of a Membranitropic Preparation and the HIV-1/2 Strain in the HIV Patient (ISTC No. 2175) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 01/10/2001
* Projected End Date: 02/15/2006
* Budget: $330,000

Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Cytokines: Structure and Role in Tuberculosis Latency (ISTC No. 2201) State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Obolensk, Moscow region, Russian Academy of Sciences/A. N. Bach Institute of Biochemistry, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2002
* Projected End Date: 02/12/2008
* Budget: $700,000

Characterizations and Comparisons of Bartonella Strains of Animal and Human Origins from Russia and the USA (ISTC No. 2223) Gamalei Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, Moscow, Moscow Medical Academy, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2003
* Projected End Date: 11/21/2008
* Budget: $490,000

Comparative Mycobacterial Genomics: Unraveling Differences of Functional and Diagnostic Importance by Subtractive Hybridization (ISTC No. 2225) State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Obolensk, Moscow reg., Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2001
* Projected End Date: 11/10/2006
* Budget: $468,372

Catalytic Antibody Approach in Development of New Antiviral Therapeutics (ISTC No. 2226) Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Moscow, State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Obolensk, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 07/01/2003
* Projected End Date: 04/18/2012
* Budget: $576,827
Construction of Recombinant Plasmids Encoding Synthesis of Pathogenic Microorganism Protective Antigens and Study of Their Properties (ISTC No. 2237) State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Obolensk, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2002
* Projected End Date: 01/10/2008
* Budget: $596,550

Integrated Preclinical/Clinical Aids Vaccine Development (ISTC No. 2344) Institute of Highly Pure Biopreparations, St. Petersburg
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2002
* Projected End Date: 09/25/2006
* Budget: $710,000

Development of a Candidate Vaccine Capable of Eliciting Protective Humoral and Cell-Mediated Responses to a Broad Range of HIV-1 Variants (ISTC No. 2450) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region, Institute of Highly Pure Biopreparations, St. Petersburg
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2002
* Projected End Date: 03/11/2008
* Budget: $468,822

Surveillance on Prevalence and Molecular Mechanisms of Antimicrobial Resistance Among Streptococcus Pneumoniae in Russia Federation (ISTC No. 2460) State Research Center of Antibiotics, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2004
* Projected End Date: 04/29/2008
* Budget: $380,000

Anti-Influenza Virus Therapeutic (ISTC No. 2464) Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Moscow State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2003
* Projected End Date: 06/16/2008
* Budget: $817,425

Development of Oligonucleotide Microchips for Diagnostic of Human-Pathogenic Orthopoxviruses (ISTC No. 2508) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk reg., Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2002
* Projected End Date: 04/14/2008
* Budget: $849,668

The Study of Vilyui Encephalomyelitis: Identification of the Etiologic Agent; Peculiarities of Epidemiology and Prophylaxis (ISTC No. 2539) Institute of Clinical Immunology, Novosibirsk, Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, Irkutsk, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2004
* Projected End Date: 08/27/2008
* Budget: $394,345

Candidate DNA-Vaccines against HIV (ISTC No. 2547) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2003
* Projected End Date: 07/25/2007
* Budget: $341,250

Study of Heat Shock Protein Functions in Lymphoid Cell Populations (ISTC No. 2627)
Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Moscow, State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Obolensk, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2004
* Projected End Date: 10/22/2010
* Budget: $669,936
Tuberculosis in Central Russia: Genetic Peculiarities of the Pathogen and Drug Resistance in Mycobacterium Tuberculosis (ISTC No. 2628) State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Obolensk, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2005
* Projected End Date: 06/24/2008
* Budget: $251,380

Molecular Mechanisms of Ganglioside-Induced Apoptosis of T-Lymphocytes (ISTC No. 2654)
Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Moscow, Institute of Immunological Engineering, Lyubuchany, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2004
* Projected End Date: 07/12/2012
* Budget: $584,028
Test-Kit for Rapid Drug Susceptibility Testing of M. Tuberculosis (ISTC No. 2748) State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Obolensk, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2004
* Projected End Date: 10/6/2010
* Budget: $474,600

Association of Human Lymphocyte Receptors with Membrane Lipid Rafts: Implications for Development of Anti-HIV Therapies (ISTC No. 2812) Institute of Immunology, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2004
* Projected End Date: 07/02/2008
* Budget: $270,000

Application of Tritium Bombardment Technique to Uncover the Structure of M1 Protein of Influenza Virus, M1-Hemagglutinin Interactions and Their Role in Viral Entry (ISTC No. 2816) Semenov Institute of Chemical Physics, Moscow, Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Moscow, Moscow State University/A.N. Belozersky Institute of Physical and Chemical Biology, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2004
* Projected End Date: 08/04/2008
* Budget: $559,970

Investigation of Analytical Approaches to Determine the Authenticity/Quality of Pharmaceutical Products to Improve the Public Health by Identifying Counterfeit and Ineffective Products (ISTC No. 2829) Moscow State University, Department of Chemistry, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2004
* Projected End Date: 07/16/2008
* Budget: $471,033

Development of a Research Center for Tuberculosis Clinical Trials Through the Conduct of a Study of a Modified Treatment Regimen for WHO Category 1 Patients (ISTC No. 2879)
The First Moscow State Medical University named after I.M. Sechenov/Research Institute of Phthisiopulmonology, State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Obolensk, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2005
* Projected End Date: 06/05/2011
* Budget: $1,369,509

Elaboration of Efficient Methods for Preparation of a Hepatitis A Virus Antigen on the Basis of a Non-Primate Cell-Adapted IVA Strain for Diagnostic and Prophylactic Purposes (ISTC No. 2899) Research Center of Molecular Diagnostics and Therapy, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2005
* Projected End Date: 07/25/2008
* Budget: $346,500
Biochips for Early Diagnostics of HIV and Hepatitis B and C Viruses in Donor Blood (ISTC No. 2906) Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2005
* Projected End Date: 07/21/2008
* Budget: $399,862

Spread and Molecular Mechanisms of Resistance to Beta-Lactam Antibiotics Among Gram-Negative Bacteria in Nosocomial Infections (ISTC No. 2913) Moscow Medicine Academy, Moscow, State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Obolensk, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2005
* Projected End Date: 06/17/2009
* Budget: $677,964
Molecular Identification of Rubella Virus Isolates Circulating in the West Siberia (ISTC No. 2924) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2004
* Projected End Date: 03/31/2008
* Budget: $297,055

The Epidemiology of Viral Gastroenteritis in Russia. Development of New Assays for Virus Detection and Characterization (ISTC No. 2935) Central Research Institute of Epidemiology, Moscow, State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2005
* Projected End Date: 08/27/2010
* Budget: $683,275
Antidotes to Highly Toxic Organophosphates (ISTC No. 2951) Institute of Toxicology, St. Petersburg
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2004
* Projected End Date: 05/13/2005
* Budget: $27,500
Further Improvement of Influenza Surveillance in Russia. Contribution in Global Influenza Pandemic Preparedness (ISTC No. 3070) Research Institute of Influenza, St. Petersburg, Ivanovsky Institute of Virology, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2006
* Projected End Date: 02/29/2012
* Budget: $1,702,922

Phosphorescence Multianalyte Microanalysis of Dried Blood Spots as a Basis of Seroepidemiological Monitoring of Zoonotic Infections Transmitted by Ixodid Ticks (ISTC No. 3135) State Research Institute of Biological Instrument-Making, Moscow, Close Joint Stock Company “Immunoscreen,” Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 11/01/2005
* Projected End Date: 04/22/2011
* Budget: $665,550

Establishing Meaningful Critical Concentrations of 2-nd Line Anti-TB Drugs for in Vitro Susceptibility Testing Based on in Vivo Efficacy in Animal Models (ISTC No. 3139)
State Research Center for Applied Microbiology, Obolensk, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 02/01/2007
* Projected End Date: 01/25/2012
* Budget: $651,930

The Role of Ixodes Persulcatus’ Saliva in Lyme Disease Immunopathogenesis (ISTC No. 3171) State Research Center for Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Obolensk, Moscow region
* Project Agreement Date: 10/01/2005
* Projected End Date: 11/01/2012
* Budget: $790,000

Computer-Assisted Discovery of New HIV-1 Integrase Inhibitors (ISTC No. 3197)
Institute of Biomedical Chemistry, Moscow; Institute of Organic Chemistry, Moscow; Moscow State University/A.N. Belozersky Institute of Physical and Chemical Biology, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2005
* Projected End Date: 09/13/2010
* Budget: $569,759
Immunologic and Structural Studies on Mammalian Cell Expressed Recombinant HCV Envelope Proteins E1 and E2 (ISTC No. 3255) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk region
* Project Agreement Date: 02/01/2006
* Projected End Date: 04/05/2011
* Budget: $540,637

Genetic Diversity of HIV-1 Circulating on the Territory of Russia (ISTC No. 3277) Scientific Research Institute of Vaccines and Serums, Moscow, Central Research Institute of Epidemiology, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 02/01/2006
* Projected End Date: 09/06/2012
* Budget: $616,075

Implication of the Universal PCR on Bacterial 16S Ribosomal RNA in the Blood Service and in Clinical Microbiology (ISTC No. 3359) Research Center of Toxicology and Hygienic Regulation of Biopreparations, Serpukhov, Moscow region, Ministry of Health/Blood Center, Moscow, The First Moscow State Medical University named after I.M. Sechenov, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2007
* Projected End Date: 12/01/2012
* Budget: $481,675

Improvement and Standardization of Laboratory and Epidemiologic Rubella Surveillance Methods in Russian Federation (ISTC No. 3373) Scientific Research Institute of Vaccines and Serums, Moscow, Research Institute of Influenza, St. Petersburg
* Project Agreement Date: 09/01/2006
* Projected End Date: 05/18/2012
* Budget: $350,145

Collection and Analysis of the Information, Creation of the Computer Database on Radioactive Contamination of Environments in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine at the Early Phase of the Chernobyl Accident (ISTC No. 3452) Scientific and Production Association “Typhoon,” Obninsk, Kaluga region Project Agreement Date: 11/01/2006 Projected End Date: 03/27/2009 Budget: $100,000

Development and Certification of National Reference and Control Anti-HCV Antibodies Serum Panels for Evaluating the Quality of Hepatitis C Diagnostics in Russia (ISTC No. 3526) State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, Koltsovo, Novosibirsk reg., Tarasevich State Standardization and Control of Medical Preparations Research Institute, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 04/01/2007
* Projected End Date: 08/14/2012
* Budget: $471,737

Salmonella Surveillance in Russian Federation (ISTC No. 3533) Central Research Institute of Epidemiology, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 01/01/2007
* Projected End Date: 07/11/2012
* Budget: $327,550

Development of an Oligonucleotide Microarray Chip for Typing Various Subtypes of Type A Influenza Virus (ISTC No. 3803) Siberian Branch of RAS/Institute of Chemical Biology and Fundamental Medicine, Novosibirsk
* Project Agreement Date: 11/01/2007
* Projected End Date: 12/01/2012
* Budget: $360,000

Development of a Rapid Test for Clinical Laboratory Diagnosis of Chlamydia Trachomatis (ISTC No. 3846) Saratov Scientific and Research Veterinary Institute, Saratov
* Project Agreement Date: 08/01/2008
* Projected End Date: 12/31/2013
* Budget: $248,130

Analysis of T-cell Differentiation Status and the Development of a New Immunological Approach for Active TB Diagnosis and Monitoring (ISTC No. 4072) Central Tuberculosis Research Institute, Moscow
* Project Agreement Date: 06/01/2011
* Projected End Date: 08/26/2012
* Budget: $10,000
SOURCE: Information provided by ISTC, March 2012.

Appendix C.5. National Institutes of Health

From 2006 to 2011, the annual investments of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in research at Russian institutions averaged approximately $6.2 million (see Figure C.5-1). The level is declining and represents only 2–3 percent of the overall level of NIH awards to scientists abroad. The areas of research have included drug and alcohol abuse, HIV, radiation exposure, tuberculosis, cardiovascular diseases, demographics, genetics, and basic research. In addition, many Russian researchers have participated in the NIH intramural visiting program, with about 100 visitors during 2010. In addition, more than 100 Russian trainees have been supported since 2000, with the majority working in the field of infectious disease research.

Funding of NIH grant awards to researchers in Russia. SOURCE: Information provided by NIH, May 2012.

In addition, NIH and its National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases have managed the BioTechnology Engagement Program (BTEP) supported by the Department of State (see Appendix C.4). During fiscal year 2011, seven BTEP projects were active. These and previous projects focused on:
* High-impact and emerging infectious diseases: tuberculosis, HIV, hepatitis, plague, and influenza.
* Endemic and other infectious diseases: rubella, rabies, helicobacter pylori.
* Vector, food, and water-borne diseases.

In November 2009, NIH, together with the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, signed an agreement with the Russian Academy of Sciences. This agreement led to the development of a public-private partnership coordinated by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health. The partnership, initially sponsored financially by Eli Lilly and Co., is tasked with organization of annual meetings, conduct of clinical and translational research training courses, and fellowship support for Russian researchers. The first activity was a meeting titled U.S.-Russia Scientific Forum that convened in Moscow in November of 2011. The forum focused on five thematic areas: cancer, healthy lifestyles, human development, infectious diseases, and rare diseases, with more than 200 participants from the United States and Russia. Meetings on brain sciences and cardiovascular diseases took place at the same time in the United States. Ongoing and potential collaborations emerged during the forum, including interest by (a) Duke University and the Institute of Gene Biology to study nanotransporters, (b) several U.S. medical research centers and the Institute of Biomedical Chemistry to study medical proteomics, and (c) the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Washington University, the Institute for Degenerative Disorders, and several institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences to study preventive treatment of neurodegenerative diseases.

In 2012, NIH and the Russian Foundation for Basic Research agreed to support expanded cooperation on HIV and AIDS. After a competition, 13 projects jointly submitted by Russian and American researchers were approved for funding at an overall level of about $2.25 million. NIH will cover most of the costs of these grants, with the Russian side providing about 10 percent of the total funding. In 2012, NIH also announced a 2-year fellowship program for Russian postdoctoral fellows in biomedical research. The two organizations have also cooperated in carrying out projects in the fields of cancer, autoimmune diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, and Alzheimer disease.

Over the years, NIH has encountered a number of issues in carrying out cooperative programs, including the following:
* Russian taxation of grants to Russian scientists.
* Processing and customs delays and fees on international shipments of biological samples and on equipment transfers.
* Complex grant application procedures.
* Delays in obtaining both Russian and American visas.
SOURCE: Information provided by NIH, September 2012.

Appendix C.6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In the mid-1990s, the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission facilitated collaborations between U.S. and Russian scientists in a number of fields. The secretary of health and human services played an important role in maintaining an open dialogue concerning mutual interests in public health and medical science. Against this background, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) were among the U.S. agencies to expand collaborative partnerships with Russian scientists.

The expansion of CDC’s interests included a new focus on engagement of former Russian defense scientists, with special financing provided through the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and through the Department of State to pursue this expanding interest. An initial effort was directed to activities at the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector, in Koltsovo, and the State Research Center for Applied Microbiology in Obolensk.

In the late 1990s, DTRA launched a demonstration project involving five collaborative pilot projects based in Koltsovo and three in Obolensk, at an average cost of $55,000 each. These projects linked U.S. and Russian experts who were experienced in handling especially dangerous pathogens. The initial emphasis was on partnerships involving U.S. government specialists, which led to involvement of CDC personnel.

Building on these early efforts, DTRA financed Russian participation in several follow-on projects, calling on CDC specialists for assistance. However, the sustainability of some projects was questionable because of (a) lack of adequate funding for U.S. participants, (b) limitations of appropriate U.S. investigators’ availability to ensure project success, given their other responsibilities, and (c) administrative hurdles that disrupted schedules and led to long delays. Also, on the Russian side there was limited capacity of partner scientists to actively contribute to the collaborations, due in large measure to the poor state of their facilities and the economic crisis disrupting activities at the institutes.

Nevertheless, these initial partnerships helped demonstrate that even under very difficult conditions, it was possible to work together and contribute to scientific progress. Most important, lasting relationships were created. A number of joint research projects eventually evolved in Russia, and CDC personnel continued to play important roles. These projects facilitated transparency and confidence building at a time when serious security issues were paramount.

In the early 2000s, the BioTechnology Engagement Program was developed, with the Department of State transferring funds from its nonproliferation portfolio to several government agencies to support research at Russian institutions, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS in turn arranged for the participation of CDC and other HHS entities in collaborative endeavors. In parallel, DTRA continued to provide funding to CDC for its continued support of DTRA’s nonproliferation efforts in Russia, including both research and capacity-building efforts. Also, the U.S. Agency for International Development relied on CDC support as it expanded its health-oriented programs, particularly with regard to AIDS and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB).

Then in 2008, the Department of State terminated the transfer of its nonproliferation funds to HHS, as the government cut back support for activities in Russia. But a series of disease outbreaks involving Russia led to a continued presence of CDC in Russia and to training of Russian counterparts in Atlanta. Longstanding collaborations on important public health infectious diseases, specifically HIV and MDR-TB (especially within high-risk populations such as prisoners), have remained in place for many years. At least in the case of TB, there have been projects that involved pharmaceutical industry partners such as Eli Lilly.

Also, during the past decade, CDC collaborations have expanded to include a wider range of infectious diseases, with perhaps the most emphasis being placed on influenza surveillance. This focus was stimulated, at least in part, by the Group of Eight (G-8) summit in St. Petersburg in 2006 and global concern regarding possible pandemic avian influenza (influenza A/H5N1). Russia took this opportunity to focus the G-8 health discussion on influenza and to expand Russian programs in influenza.

More recently, collaborations have expanded to a wide range of Russian institutions and a broad set of joint topics. In addition to studies undertaken at the State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology, Vector, and the State Research Center for Applied Microbiology (four projects), collaborations with CDC principal investigators have involved the (a) Central Institute of Epidemiology (two projects), (b) Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology, (c) Gamaleya Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, (d) I.I. Mechnikov Moscow Research Institute of Vaccines and Sera, (e) Sechenov Moscow Medical Academy, (f) National Research Institute of Antibiotics, (g) Pokrov Plant of Biopreparations, (h) Research Institute of Phthisiopulmonology, (i) State Research Institute of Biological Instrument-Making, and (j) Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry. At present, CDC has a long-term collaborative arrangement with the Research Institute of Influenza.

Topics that have been undertaken include studies on (a) smallpox, although a genome project on smallpox was approved but not implemented, (b) influenza surveillance, (c) rabies, (d) antimicrobial-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae, (e) beta-lactamase resistance in gram-negative bacteria, (f) improvement of diagnostics for HIV and hepatitis in donor blood, (g) hepatitis C reference panels, (h) investigations of clinical isolates of M. tuberculosis, (i) tuberculosis clinical trials, (j) rapid diagnosis of susceptibility testing for M. tuberculosis, (k) laboratory determination of resistance to MDR-TB drugs, (l) molecular characterization of rubella virus strains in Russia, (m) rubella epidemiology and surveillance, (n) molecular diagnostics of mixed tick-borne infections (Ixodes persulcatus ticks), including tick-borne encephalitis and Lyme disease (borreliosis), Bartonella, and gastroenteritis viruses, and (o) Salmonella surveillance. The total cost to the U.S. government for 19 collaborations in these areas involving 13 Russian institutes has been about $12,200,000. Most of these projects have been successfully completed.

CDC also maintains technical relationships with different counterparts in Russia built around certain categorical disease issues. These involve joint participation in scientific meetings, seminars, and workshops. An example is collaborations on polio eradication. CDC is engaged with Russian partners in several studies on HIV, including mother-to-child transmission, attitudes toward HIV testing, seroprevalence studies, and development of pediatric AIDS guidelines, generally through the Global AIDS Program. Joint efforts also exist on tobacco control.

CDC took the lead in Russia in implementing joint efforts in tobacco control. An Adult Tobacco Survey became the foundation for the efforts of the Ministry of Health and Social Development to develop robust antismoking legislations.

There are occasional information exchanges between public health officials in Russia and CDC dealing with emergent issues, such as outbreaks of food-borne diseases or circulations of influenza strains. This informal dialogue has been in place for many years on a scientist-to-scientist basis, and considerable mutual respect has been engendered through these informal communications. In at least one case, contacts and communications were a direct result of personal friendships made during the early engagement with Vector scientists following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Plans are in place for joint meetings between U.S. and Russian officials to discuss collaborations in health that will focus on tobacco control, food safety, HIV/AIDS, and TB, with CDC as a primary U.S. partner. However, CDC is primarily a technical agency with expertise in disease detection, surveillance, epidemiology, and laboratory capacity, in addition to public health program implementation; and the involvement of other U.S. agencies seems appropriate. It is not yet clear how such collaboration might progress in the absence of the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) to facilitate program management and accounting or where funding might originate.

Over the years, the following Russian institutes have been the principal partners of CDC:
* State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector
* State Research Center for Applied Microbiology
* Central Institute of Epidemiology
* Mechnikov Institute of Vaccines and Sera
* Research Institute of Influenza

Sustaining advances that have been made will depend upon access to limited funds to allow continued scientist-to-scientist dialogue and technical exchanges coupled with more significant investments in major projects that can be undertaken in true partnership, including shared costs and personnel commitments divided by the two sides. Collaborative projects between CDC and Russian partners have relied on the ISTC to facilitate program management and to handle financial resources. The ISTC consistently played a critical role in this regard and has been part of the basic infrastructure required for the program’s success. With changes in management procedures on the U.S. side and the closure of the ISTC in Russia, there are significant hurdles to be overcome in moving resources between countries and distribution and accounting procedures if a similar model of collaboration is to continue in the future.

Of special significance for future activities is the Protocol of Intent between CDC and the Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being to Combat Communicable and Non-Communicable Diseases, signed in 2012 for an indefinite duration.

SOURCE: Information provided by CDC, November 2011 and May 2012, and by committee members.

Appendix C.7. National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation (NSF) does not typically award grants to institutions or individuals outside the United States, but the foundation does support American researchers conducting work in collaboration with scientists in Russia and in other countries. The majority of Russian-oriented activity is supported through the Polar, Arctic, and Antarctic research programs, although there are examples of Russian-oriented research that is funded by the biology and other programs of NSF. American scientists who are interested in studies involving Russian colleagues or institutions are encouraged to identify counterparts and the nature of their collaborations in their competitive proposals for supporting their own research.

Examples of topics of recent NSF-supported research activities that have included U.S.-Russian collaborative efforts in the biological sciences include the following:
* Protein folding
* Geothermal bacteria
* Phylogenetic analysis of avian species
* Marine data management
* Arctic river plankton
* Synthetic membranes for use to ensure safe drinking water
* Biodiversity in Lake Baikal

NSF has identified a number of benefits from joint U.S.-Russia efforts. They include, for example, the following:
* Availability of a plethora of varied habitats and biomes, as well as species not identified elsewhere in the world, which enhance the scope and quality of inventories and databases.
* Common interests in the biology and ecology of the Arctic region.
* Talented Russian researchers with experience in working with a wide array of microbial species.
* Extensive seed collections unique to Russia.
* Lower costs of research conducted in Russia than of comparable research carried out in the United States.
Challenges for NSF to fund work in Russia include the following:
* Lack of a mechanism to recoup funds or impose penalties for inappropriate use of NSF funds by foreign institutes or researchers.
* Total reliance on individual American scientists to identify appropriate collaborators.
* Competition for limited funds to be used abroad between activities to be carried out in Russia and activities in other regions of high scientific interest (e.g., ecological studies of tropical regions with important biodiversity issues).
SOURCE: Information provided by NSF, December 2011.

Appendix C.8. United States Agency for International Development

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has supported many programs in Russia, beginning in 1992. They have included programs in the fields of health, environment, agriculture, and human welfare, as well as in many other areas of relevance to economic and social development.

Among the programs that have been supported at levels of tens of millions of dollars during the past decade have been HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, reproductive health, maternal and child health, and child welfare programs. Partnerships with the Russian Ministry of Health and Social Development, nongovernmental organizations, and international agencies have provided frameworks for administering the activities and disseminating the results of programs.

Given the vast scope of USAID’s involvement in Russia, with cumulative expenditures of more than $2.5 billion, this appendix provides but small snapshots of health-related activities supported in 2003 and in 2010 that provide important examples of the types of work that have been emphasized.

The program in 2003 included the following activities:
* Promoted healthy lifestyles and HIV prevention among the youth.
* Disseminated HIV/AIDS educational materials through a wide array of media outlets.
* Offered technical assistance in support of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis control.
* Supported marketing campaigns for condom use.
* Supported training workshops and conferences, and upgraded laboratory equipment to improve diagnostic capabilities for sexually transmitted diseases.
* Increased accessibility to quality medical care.
* Improved maternal and childhood health programs.

Activities in 2010 included the following:
* Developed model tuberculosis treatment and drug-resistance prevention programs.
* Supported AIDS training and education centers for medical professionals.
* Fostered drug abuse prevention and rehabilitation services.
* Developed standardized approaches to HIV prevention among injection drug users.
* Disseminated HIV prevention education materials to high-risk populations.
* Organized efforts to reduce neonatal mortality.
* Provided teen health and family planning counseling.
* Encouraged best practices in maternal and childhood health.

In mid-2012, plans were under way to significantly reduce the level of USAID’s programs in Russia. Only two health-related areas were scheduled for continuation, namely control of tuberculosis and improvement of mother-child health. Activities related to HIV/AIDS had been removed, at least for the immediate future, from further funding consideration.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was to provide the following services to address tuberculosis problems:
* Evaluate methods for diagnosing TB, including the use of rapid tests that are registered and commercially available in Russia.
* Conduct training courses for TB professionals and paramedical personnel.
* Assist in the development of national standards and guidelines for effective TB control, including training curricula.
* Support participation of Russian specialists in international conferences and workshops.

With regard to mother and child health issues, USAID partners were to focus on (a) putting into effect federal guidelines and best international practices and (b) improving the skills, resources, and services at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of care. A neonatal resuscitation training course was to be developed in partnership with a Russian center.
As to funding levels, in the late 1990s, USAID programs were funded at levels in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually. During the early 2000s, annual funding levels exceeded $50 million, including more than $10 million to support health-related activities.

Then in September 2012, USAID announced its intention to terminate its Russia-based activities in response to the request of the Russian government. It was not immediately clear whether programs administered from Washington would continue in Russia, although the U.S. government vowed to stay engaged with Russian organizations with common interests.
SOURCE: Information provided by USAID, Moscow, October 2011 and updated November 2012.

Appendix C.9. Environmental Protection Agency

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has collaborated with Soviet and Russian scientists for 40 years. Since 2000, the Department of State has provided most of the support, with the goal of redirecting former Russian defense-oriented scientists to civilian careers.

Examples of research projects that have reflected fruitful U.S.-Russian collaboration are the following:
* Computational Toxicology. EPA’s program goal is to provide fast, automated tests for screening and assessing chemical exposure, hazard, and risk through far broader testing of novel compounds than was previously possible. Collaboration with Russian scientists in the program has proved to be of considerable value.
* Modeling Biological Systems. Projects supported by the International Science and Technology Center have aimed at decreasing uncertainty in chemical risk assessments by incorporating unique models of biological systems in the assessments. Successful collaborations with Russian counterparts have resulted in adoption of new methodology for quantitative analysis of genomics data for use in risk assessment, addressing risks associated with formaldehyde as a case in point. Results have been presented at international conferences and in publications.
* Identification, Characterization, and Functional Assessments of Isolated Wetlands. Through collaboration between EPA and partners at institutes of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Novosibirsk and Krasnoyarsk and at the Siberian Center for Environmental Research and Training in Tomsk, this project has developed information on the functions of wetlands that are important in improving management of wetlands in both the United States and Siberia.
The joint programs have contributed to advancement of scientific insights. Participants also report benefits in strengthening bilateral governmental ties, improving long-term training of scientists, and bolstering cultural understanding. Areas identified for future research collaboration include environmental endocrine disrupters, environmental mercury contamination, and remediation of nanotechnology releases into the environment.
SOURCE: Information provided by EPA, May 2012.

Appendix C.10. Agricultural Research Service

Beginning in 1998, the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) mounted a cooperative program with scientists in Russia, as well as with scientists in other independent states that emerged after the splintering of the USSR in 1991. The Department of State provided the funding. The International Center for Science and Technology (ISTC) in Moscow conducted onsite administration of projects. The objectives of the program were to (1) advance agricultural science by supporting the development and application of new expertise of Russian scientists, (2) enhance the effectiveness and productivity of ARS research programs that could benefit from extension of activities to Russia, (3) improve the economy of Russia through use of technological advances in Russian agriculture, and (4) reduce the global threat from biological weapons by focusing attention on civilian uses of technologies of concern while ensuring security of dangerous pathogens.

Implementation focused on scientist-to-scientist collaboration with active participation by both sides in jointly designed projects. Projects were funded through grants, usually at a level of about $300,000 over 3 years. Most of the funds were committed to Russian laboratories. ARS limited the funding of its own laboratories to no more than 17 percent of the total funds for any project (commonly, $40,000 over 3 years). This amount could support travel and incidental costs incurred by ARS participants. ARS scientists generally considered such projects to be a part of their personal research programs.

Project selection and approval was a two-step process, driven largely by the ARS collaborators. Brief preliminary proposals developed by either side, which had support by the ARS scientists and concurrence by the ARS national program leader, were considered for support as a direct extension of the ARS program. External peer review was not utilized.
For successful preliminary proposals, the first step was funding of a visit by the cooperating Russian scientists for 1 to 3 weeks to the research facility of the ARS scientist. If the ARS or Russian scientists were not enthusiastic about cooperation after this visit (e.g., a mismatch of capabilities and interests), the process would stop. Otherwise, a full proposal was prepared in ISTC format and reviewed by the governments of the two countries and the ISTC according to ISTC’s established procedures.

The ARS review focused, among other things, on compliance with various guidelines, including animal care and use. A requirement for reciprocal yearly visits was included in the proposal. If a proposal was received from a Russian scientist and no U.S. collaborator was named, an effort would be made to locate ARS scientists with relevant skills. Once the proposal was approved, the ISTC then played a key role in providing oversight and resolving problems directly with Russian project participants.

Russian scientists who were struggling financially and who were outside the mainstream of international collaboration enthusiastically greeted the first official visits to their facilities by ARS personnel. It was immediately apparent to the American visitors that the Russian laboratories had well-trained scientists and resources, including pathogen collections that could provide a basis for productive cooperation. The first four projects were approved in 2000 at two Russian laboratories. From 2000 to 2011, about 50 projects were established at Russian laboratories. The program in Russia and other countries that emerged from the USSR has involved more than 30 ARS laboratories and 27 counterpart institutes, with more than 1,300 participating scientists.

Funds expended by ARS through 2011 totaled $48.2 million, with 45 percent of these funds directed to projects in Russia. Most of the funds were expended in a 7-year period, from 2000 through 2006, when funding available to the ARS for the program totaled $5–6 million annually. Then funding levels dramatically decreased as the priorities of the Department of State changed.

Surveys of American scientists involved in the program indicated that the strength of the program was the high quality of scientist-to-scientist interactions that was achieved in almost every case. The principal investigators from both countries contributed to the design of the project, agreed on objectives and procedures, and supported the work throughout the project. Reciprocal visits were considered by most to be not just an adjunct to electronic communications but the true core of the collaboration. In addition, many scientists on both sides reported the building of personal relationships that went well beyond the content of the project.

Of course, there were significant challenges. Movement of biological materials was difficult and was not always sufficiently considered in the development of projects. Some laboratory facilities and vivariums in Russia needed to be upgraded to meet U.S. standards, an issue not always sufficiently considered at the outset. Some Russian laboratories were reluctant to consider cooperation, or such cooperation was discouraged by governing agencies in Russia. Publication of results in international journals was difficult (or a low priority) for some Russian laboratories. This topic deserved discussion at the outset of projects.

There were enthusiastic reviews by almost all participating scientists on both sides. Of the 50 Russian projects, 40 were extended beyond the initial 3-year period, thus providing good evidence of support by collaborators and the authorities from both countries. Many Russian institutes benefited from improved physical facilities and equipment provided through the cooperative projects. However, this statistic does not adequately reflect the strength of the personal relationships formed and the value of such relationships to future research and transparency in science.

Sustainability of projects remains an issue. Few mechanisms for funding of applied projects in agriculture exist in either Russia or the United States. Many promising collaborative projects ended. They could have been continued on a productive basis if financial support had been available. While limited support has been obtained for a few projects, the level of collaboration is unlikely to reach earlier levels.

The original program was considered successful in achieving its objectives, and some aspects of the program can serve as models for future collaborative efforts. At the same time, however, sustainability of research programs in this field is not likely in the absence of a continuing source of government funding.
SOURCE: Information provided by Agricultural Research Service, March 2012.

Appendix C.11. Fish and Wildlife Service

The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is to “work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.”

In 1994, the U.S. and Russian governments signed a memorandum of understanding titled “Cooperation in the Field of Protection of the Environment and Natural Resources,” which guides bilateral cooperation in this field. The U.S.-Russia border across the Bering Strait makes the two countries pivotal partners for conservation and management of a shared ecosystem. Collaborative efforts have taken the form of information and data exchanges, joint research, disbursement by the FWS of approximately 30 small grants to both Russian and American recipients totaling several hundred thousand dollars annually, and joint management and planning between the (a) FWS and (b) Russian Institute of Ecology and Evolution and Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

Activities in 2012 reflect numerous areas of emphasis that developed over the previous 15 years, including:
* Study and conservation of cranes, raptors, marine, and other rare birds.
* Exchange of banding data for migratory birds.
* Study and conservation of polar bears.
* Cooperation of zoos in breeding of species of interest.
* Information and best practice exchanges in wildlife trade and law enforcement.
* Ecosystem biodiversity.
* Management of protected areas.
* Marine mammal conservation and management.
* Plant and animal ecology.
* Aquaculture.
* Arctic ecology and dynamics.

An example of a particularly important activity is the U.S.-Russia Polar Bear Agreement of 2007, which aligns plans for managing a shared population of bears between the countries. It has guided the conservation and management of an iconic species. A joint survey of walrus populations throughout the Bering Strait was also a successful joint effort, with important implications for species management that could not have been carried out without support from both nations.

Lessons learned during the decades of interaction have demonstrated importance of the following approaches:
* Scientific collaboration between specialists who have devoted their careers to similar passions can persist despite political differences between the two countries.
* Small FWS grants to upgrade Russian conservation infrastructure can lead to substantial improvements because of the relatively inexpensive cost of improvements in Russia, particularly when compared to the costs of similar work carried out in the United States.
* Open and regular dialogues between scientists have been more important in maintaining effective collaborative relationships than simply adhering to strictly defined respective roles of scientists from the two countries.
SOURCE: Information provided by Fish and Wildlife Service, April 2012

Russia BioWeapons Program – Soviet and Post-Soviet