Bureaucracy
In the field of medical research, bureaucracy has become synonymous with funding. The study of infectious diseases and pathogens has become one of competition, pitting departments and institutions against one another for federal funding and permissions. Because of the volatile nature of these studies, government sign-off and oversight is inevitable, making progress in the field somewhat painstaking. Additionally funds granted to these institutions often come with strings, strings attached to the DOD and other military departments. While the U.S. government is concerned with the cessation and prevention of the spread of infectious diseases, it also devotes considerable attention to the development of these diseases as biological weapons, both preventative and offensive.
Defense
Military defense carries both the preventative mandate and the aggressive, a dual nature with dramatic consequences in the field of medicine. Research in epidemiology is only allowed in conjunction with military contracts. The U.S. government views infectious diseases as critical because of their potential both as global disasters and biological weapons of destruction. Consequently much of the research being conducted in the field regards the development of these pathogens and viruses as weapons. This research is supposed to be preventative -- identifying weaknesses in the infrastructure in response to exposure to an infectious disease as a public health crisis -- and aggressive -- developing America's own biological weapons.
Ethics in the Field of Epidemiology
Ethics has come to the forefront of the political conversation regarding epidemiology. Regardless of the military consequences of such research, the methods by which research is conducted are subject to severe criticism. The risks of researching these diseases are numerous and grave, seeing as most epidemics these days pose not only a national but also a global threat. The human immune system is sensitive to pathogens to which it has not previously been exposed, so the risk of studying eradicated diseases, like smallpox, is exponentially higher. In response numerous ethical platforms have been presented regarding the efficacy of such experiments. Another important ethical consideration involves the testing of infectious diseases among animals. Alfred Sommer of John Hopkins School of Public Health has been a leading critic of such practices, arguing that the forced exposure of lab animals to these pathogens is not only unethical but reckless, considering the animals previously were thought incapable of contracting these diseases.
