WHY WAS THIS FUNDED?

This award was likely made under the Project BioShield Act, which allows the federal government to buy and stockpile medical countermeasures to protect Americans from biological threats. Additional program information is not available on the exact legal citation used.

WHAT PUBLIC PROBLEM IS IT TRYING TO SOLVE?

Smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980, but it remains a potential biological threat because stockpiles of the virus exist and could be used in a bioterrorism attack. The government wants to have a treatment ready in case an outbreak ever occurs.

WHO BENEFITS?

The American public would benefit by having a medical treatment available if a smallpox outbreak or bioterrorism event ever happened. Researchers and employees at SIGA Technologies also benefit through the jobs and funding this contract supports.

WHAT ARE THE RISKS?

Because this contract runs for over 10 years and involves a single company, there is a risk of limited competition and reduced pressure to control costs. The drug being stockpiled may never be needed, raising questions about whether the spending delivers measurable public health value.

WHAT HAPPENS IF FUNDING IS REMOVED?

If this contract were cancelled, the U.S. government would likely have little to no approved medical treatment available in the event of a smallpox outbreak or bioterrorism attack. Development of the drug would likely slow or stop, leaving a gap in national emergency preparedness.

ARGUMENTS FOR

• •Smallpox has no widely available treatment, so stockpiling an antiviral is a responsible step in preparing for a rare but potentially catastrophic public health emergency.
• •Investing in late-stage drug development now is far less costly than responding to an uncontrolled outbreak without any approved treatments.
• •Maintaining a biodefense stockpile deters potential bad actors and strengthens national security by showing the U.S. is prepared for biological threats.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

• •Smallpox has been eradicated for decades, so spending over $626 million on a treatment for a disease that may never reappear could be seen as a poor use of limited public health dollars.
• •The contract appears to go to a single company over a very long period, which reduces competition and may result in higher prices for taxpayers.
• •Funds of this size could potentially address more immediate and ongoing public health challenges, such as existing infectious diseases that currently cause widespread harm.