CASE CLOSED … what really happened in the 2001 anthrax attacks?

* EPA, USAMRIID and University of Michigan Have All Failed To Produce Under FOIA Documents Relating To the 1998 Research By The Former Zawahiri Associate Alongside Bruce Ivins In The Bio-Level 3 At USAMRIID

Posted by Lew Weinstein on October 31, 2012

Advertisements

16 Responses to “* EPA, USAMRIID and University of Michigan Have All Failed To Produce Under FOIA Documents Relating To the 1998 Research By The Former Zawahiri Associate Alongside Bruce Ivins In The Bio-Level 3 At USAMRIID”

  1. DXer said

    This EPA unit fights terrorism with science

    It’s not all about hugging trees

    By Kendra Pierre-Louis
    http://www.popsci.com/epa-unit-that-fights-terrorism-with-science#page-4

    Why Create the NHSRC?

    The NHSRC was established in 2002, within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Research and Development, in the wake of the September 11th and Amerithrax attacks, where anthrax spores were mailed to media outlets and two Democratic U.S. Senators (sickening 17 people and killing five).

    ***
    “If someone uses a chemical or biological weapon inside the United States and it leaves a mess,” said Dan Kaszeta, “the issue is, who cleans up the mess and how?” Kaszeta worked with the White House Military Office providing biological and chemical terrorism emergency plans, and then spent another six years working with the U.S. Secret Service protecting George W. Bush from chemical and biological hazards.

    “If it’s something like anthrax spore or a deadly nerve agent, you don’t just go in with a mop and a bucket,” said Kaszeta.

    ***

    If you have a building that might have been exposed to anthrax, for example, it’s the EPA’s job to figure out the best way of detecting any anthrax that might be there. And if the building is contaminated, depending on who owns the building it’s the EPA’s job to clean it up or at least make sure that the building is cleaned correctly.

    It’s not as straightforward as killing the biological contaminant—chlorine gas, which was used in the wake of Amerithrax, does a reasonably good job of killing anthrax, but it also damages everything from carpets to artwork to electrical systems. A building purified with chlorine gas may be clean, but it’s also likely to wind up unusable. The NHSRC has to come up with more practical solutions.

    The 2018 budget blueprint calls for $233 million dollar cut in the EPA’s Office of Research and Development budget, a reduction of 48 percent. NHSRC is located within the Office of Research and Development.

    “After 9-11,” said Drielak, “there were numerous threats to the nation’s infrastructure, specifically water, that were looked at closely by this group. They provided scientific advice to us as to the viability of the threat, and what we could do to minimize it. It was an invaluable service, and it will be a huge loss to the entire nation if that function is no longer available.”

  2. DXer said

    No mishaps at high-risk labs in Lansing
    Justin A. Hinkley, jhinkley@lsj.com
    http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/watchdog/2015/05/28/high-risk-labs-lansing-safe-officials-say/28088477/

    LANSING – In April 2012, containers of a bacteria that can be inhaled and cause headaches, fever, anorexia and more were found outside the safeguards of a high-security biosafety lab at the University of Michigan. …

    Tests of 17 lab workers proved negative for the bacteria, Brucella, and area emergency rooms reported no cases of related illnesses. A lab worker told U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention inspectors and U-M officials that the materials had been deactivated, though documentation of such wasn’t found.

    The incident happened at one of three Michigan lab facilities, two of which are in Greater Lansing, that are rated to work with some of the most dangerous bacteria and viruses in the world. And it highlights the risk of these facilities nationwide, often located near downtowns, shopping districts and university campuses.

    But a USA Today Network investigation identified hundreds of lab mistakes, safety violations and near-miss incidents nationwide in recent years, from missing bacteria to infected lab mice escaping to wild animals making nests with research waste. Just Wednesday, the Pentagon confirmed that a U.S. military lab had inadvertently sent samples of live anthrax to nine states.

  3. DXer said

    If taxpayer dollars are going to be used in providing foreign nationals access to dangerous pathogens, at least records should be kept and should be available consistent with FOIA.

  4. DXer said

    Note above that it is explained:

    “In December 1999, the U.S. Army tested a broad spectrum nanoemulsion and nine other biodecontamination technologies in Dugway, Utah, against an anthrax surrogate, Bacillus globigii. Nanoemulsion was one of four technologies that proved effective and was the only nontoxic formulation available. Other tests against the vaccine strain of B. anthracis (Sterne strain) were conducted by the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and by the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research.”

    Was a study done in 1999 also with virulent Ames — as it had been done in 1998 in Dr. Ivins’ B3? (See FBI fax to USAMRIID dated September 10, 2004)

    Regardless, where are the lab notebook pages regarding that research done by May 6 – May 9, 1998? What happened to the missing notebooks, notes and other documents of the laboratory technician? . Were they shredded along with Patricia Fellows’ civil deposition? (See meeting notes from USAMRIID meeting with FBI on September 8, 2004)

    Joany J., from JE’s lab, who made a dried powder out of Ames from Flask 1029, went to Johns-Hopkins.

    TA, from JE’s lab, the scientist collecting the samples for the FBI, did not submit a sample of the Ames she had in JE’s lab,(speciously) reasoning that it would be genetically identical to Ivins’ Flask 1029. (Then she gave wavering and contradictory testimony about when she first acquired it).

    Where are the documents, including lab notebook pages, on the biological warfare decontamination efficacy done in Ivins’ B3 with virulent Ames in May 1998? Did someone destroy them? If so, that would constitute obstruction of justice.

    http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

    • DXer said

      DARPA too is a source of documents about the 1999 biological warfare decontamination studies involving the laboratory technician from USAMRIID.

      Here is testimony from November 2001.

      http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy76414.000/hsy76414_0.HTM

      I am Dr. James Baker, a physician who is the Ruth Dow Doan Professor of Internal Medicine and Director of the Center for Biologic Nanotechnology at the University of Michigan. I am also the head of Allergy and Immunology in the Medical School. I am a 14-year veteran of service in the U.S. Military, 12 of it on active duty, including service during Desert Storm. With support from the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency, the National Institutes of Health and NASA, my center is applying these technologies to a number of problems in biology including infectious disease therapy and microbial decontamination. I am also the CSO of a startup company, NanoBio Corporation, which is dedicated to commercializing new technologies for antimicrobial applications and decontamination. I have extensively studied the problems involved in preventing illness as a result of bioterrorism or bio-warfare, and I am pleased to have been invited to testify before the committee this morning.

      The Issue of Biological Decontamination

      It is first important to define biological decontamination. Decontamination might be simply defined as removing an agent from an environment or location. This process can involve many approaches, from the actual destruction of a location to something as minimal as simple washing. However, whatever the approach, it should remove the contamination without spreading the problem. The degree to which decontamination must effectively remove a contaminating organism depends to a great degree upon the agent. This relates to what I will call the concept of a medically acceptable level of residual contamination or simply the minimal number of organisms necessary to cause disease. This can vary greatly between bio-agents. For example, even one or two virions of Ebola virus can yield a productive infection if inhaled while several hundred anthrax spores may be necessary even for cutaneous infection. This also involves the persistence of stability of an agent in an environment. Unfortunately, the level of contamination that is tolerable with many diseases is not absolutely known. This is because most studies have only examined acute exposure and the effects of chronic, low-level exposure to pathogens or chemical agents are not well defined. Finite levels of residual anthrax spores that will be medically safe are currently not defined and open to debate. These must also be adjusted for individuals with defective immune defenses. Because of these issues, a rather simplistic concept of decontamination can become very complicated. Other factors that may confound our understanding of decontamination include the presence of more than one infectious agent in a contaminated site, which can lead to differing requirements, in part because exposure to more than one pathogen may increase susceptibility.

      The Problem at Hand: Can We Decontaminate and Make a Building Safe?

      The current problem is whether buildings that have varying levels of contamination with anthrax spores can be safely decontaminated. This is not a new problem. There are buildings at USAMRIID and West Desert Test Station at Dugway, UT that have not been torn down because of fears about anthrax spore contamination. Despite this, these buildings have been used without evidence of illness in the occupants. The concern is that the destruction of these buildings would spread spore contamination, and no effective approach to decontamination has been defined. We have, up until now, avoided decontaminating buildings for spores.

      We are now acutely facing this problem. Clearly, we will have to remove anthrax from contaminated buildings given the number and importance of the sites that now exist. The primary goal will be to make these buildings safe for occupants and visitors, and the level of medically acceptable residual spore concentration must be first designated then achieved. Given this necessity, however, several caveats must be made.

      1. New technologies will make it more likely that we can render buildings medically safe to reoccupy. A range of technologies from new oxidants and spore disrupting agents to vacuums has been under evaluation by the government and most can effectively reduce spore contamination on surfaces. Several of these agents can reduce spore counts on surfaces as effectively as bleach and paraformaldehyde with less toxicity. However, only a few technologies have been proven to kill spores. These share either a liquid or gas state and require direct contact with the spores. All oxidizing agents work in the same manner, regardless of format and have similar efficacy if used correctly and problems with toxicity. Newer approaches may allow decontamination without harm to the environment, sensitive equipment or valuable items. Using several of these techniques in combination should help reduce spore contamination on surfaces in contaminated buildings.

      2. Despite these technological advances, no building can be sterilized or treated in a way that removes every single spore. Total spore removal is achievable on surfaces, but cannot be done completely in a building given the complexities of the space. Therefore, techniques must be put in place to monitor residual levels of contamination and assure that a medically safe level of residual contamination be maintained.

      3. Given the differences in the design of the buildings, each one will require an individual approach. For example, it may not be feasible to use the decontamination techniques that would work for smaller, more contained spaces in a building as large as the Brentwood Post Office. Safety for the environment and surrounding communities must be a priority in this process. However, as experience with the different decontamination approaches increases, it may be feasible to do things that we did not feel were possible a few months ago. We should remember that the UK was able to decontaminate an anthrax-contaminated island.

      4. It is very important to remember that these decontamination protocols and processes are truly experiments. Nothing akin to this scale of building decontamination has been tried before, and it is not clear how effective this approach may be. Therefore, it is extremely important to conduct this work as an experiment, with appropriate data analysis. Only with this approach can we learn from this process and improve decontamination techniques for the future.

      The Process of Safe Reoccupation of a Contaminated Building

      As part of this experimental approach, I believe it is important to do two things after decontamination. The first is to provide support to those individuals who will be occupying the building after it is decontaminated. This support should involve both medical and psychiatric care so that each individual feels entirely comfortable reentering and reoccupying the space. Individuals displaced by a bioterrorism attack are traumatized to begin with, and will need additional help with reoccupation. Support groups may be very important in this process. Physicians should be readily available for any perceived problem that an individual may have after moving back in to a decontaminated building. In addition, the experiences of individuals should be recorded prospectively so that a better understanding of reoccupation is obtained. This may help to predict and prevent illness and the more data obtained from these individuals the better prepared we will be to handle these problems in the future.
      In addition, it may be particularly valuable to set up a review board of scientists and physicians to evaluate the outcome of decontamination and its effect on individuals who are reoccupying these building. This panel could function like the review board of the Challenger accident, but work on a more rapid manner given the immediacy of electronic communication. This is especially important since it is becoming clear that we don’t fully understand the exposure tolerances for individuals to anthrax spores.

      My hope is that these recommendations will help in the approach to decontamination of these buildings and will yield a better result for all involved.

      http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

  5. DXer said

    Dr. Majidi says that the Ames must have been diverted by a USAMRIID employee. This is just totally silly. For example, foreign scientists — non-citizens — visited USAMRIID and worked alongside Bruce Ivins, including a man whose friends were recruited to jihad by Ayman Zawahiri. Is Dr. Majidi really this uninformed?

    (Indeed, it could have been diverted by one of the labs supplied the Ames by USAMRIID.)

    it is clear that Amerithrax was botched and it is becoming more and more clear who played a central role in botching it.

  6. DXer said

    The former Zawahiri associate supplied virulent Ames by Bruce Ivins as part of authorized DARPA-funded research used to live in Khartoum, Sudan with his mother. They would return to Cairo to visit from Khartoum. He would visit a comic store with the Hamid brothers. His mother taught at the University there in Khartoum. Did Tarek know Bin Laden or Zawahiri while Osama and Ayman were based in Khartoum? Or did he meet members of the Zawahiri family only at Cairo Medical.

    http://www.amerithrax.wordpress.com

    Background:

    http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2013/01/al_qaeda_in_sudan_launches_stu.php
    the terror group launched a “student wing” at the University of Khartoum. From the Sudan Tribune:

    The organization Al-Qaeda in Sudan announced yesterday the birth of its student wing in the University of Khartoum in a new sign of growing extremist influence in the country.
    The Main Street in Al-Wasat complex in Khartoum witnessed a public address on Wednesday afternoon by what appeared to be Al-Qaeda sympathizers who spoke on “The preceding Jihad in the Land of Two Niles”.

    The speakers said they disagree with the ultra-conservative Ansar al-Sunna Salafist group in Sudan but they do not consider them blasphemous. They also expressed readiness to conduct a dialogue with secularists.

    They denied that Al-Qaeda group is being pursued by the Sudanese security and rejected their labeling as extremists saying that the US is behind this adding that they adhere to the Quran and Sunna of the Prophet.

    Sudan has a long history of supporting al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, other al Qaeda leaders, and a host of fighters had their base in the country until they were kicked out by the government after US pressure. Sudanese jihadists continue to operate in multiple theaters, including in nearby Somalia.

  7. DXer said

    James Baker, who arranged for Tarek Hamouda to work with Bruce Ivins in the BL-3, has now appointed Merck & Co senior vice president responsible for the pharmaceutical giant’s global vaccines. If you think he was too busy and important before to provide the documents relating to the research done with virulent Ames by the former Zawahiri associate, you can be sure that now he is even busier. It may seem that I am the one to first be raising these issues, but actually there was a huge controversy in the early years at University of Michigan that then was kept hushed up. I think there was some Pennsylvania football program that made lots of money for the university too and university officials just did not want to hear issues raised. Money talks and people don’t.

    http://www.annarbor.com/…/nanobio-chooses-ceo-with-experience-in-acqu...

    Oct 11, 2012 – Dr. James Baker, who founded the company in 2000 as a spinoff of the University of Michigan’s … recently joined Merck & Co. as a senior vice president responsible for the pharmaceutical giant’s global vaccine franchise.

    • DXer said

      Each week many of the people I see socially are foreign graduate students. The difference is that their friends and classmates were not recruited to jihad by Ayman Zawahiri. If I were hiring them to work with dangerous bio-level 3 pathogens, I would think to require a security clearance before allowing them to work with the pathogen that Ayman Zawahiri had vowed to use against US targets. And if I then was contacting Bruce Ivins to supply them access to virulent Ames and plague, I would think to tell Bruce that the scientist was taught by Ayman Zawahiri’s sister, a professor of microbiology. If my aim was to make millions from protection against an anthrax attack (see patent applications), I would have made it a point to know the details of the anthrax threat that was publicly announced in the press by Ayman’s colleagues and the blind sheik’s lawyer in Spring 1998.

  8. DXer said

    From October 8, 2001 (shortly after it had been announced that Mr. Stevens had died of anthrax) –

    http://citrix.cleanrooms.com/index/display/Semiconductor_Article_Tools_Template/_printArticle/articles/small-times/bio/2001/10/bnanoparticles-may-get-draft-noticebras-mini-smart-bombs-against-terror-b.html

    “Tests by the U.S. Defense Department have shown that NanBio’s emulsion acts as a decontamination agent. The antimicrobial nanoemulsions employ uniformly sized droplets in the 200-400 nanometer range.
    liquid called NanoProtect, can be applied either before or after an attack to all kinds of surfaces, including skin, clothing and vehicles.”

    NANOPARTICLES MAY GET DRAFT NOTICE
    AS MINI SMART BOMBS AGAINST TERROR

    By Tom Henderson
    Small Times Senior Writer

    ANN ARBOR, Mich., Oct. 8, 2001 — A startup company spun off from the University of Michigan (U-M) has created an emulsion it says will help protect civilians and troops from biological terror attacks.

    Ted Annis, chief executive of NanoBio Corp., says its patented antimicrobial substance, a white creamy

    “Because of the events of Terrible Tuesday, we expect the Department of Defense will come to us with emergency funding to get this to market,” said Annis. “We have been contacted by the Department of Defense and asked to deliver an estimate of the cost and the timing to accelerate the technology.”

    He declined to say which branch of the Defense Department had approached him.

    NanoProtect is the result of a five-year, $11.8 million grant by the U.S. Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) to University of Michigan researcher Dr. James Baker Jr., director of the school’s Center for Biologic Nanotechnology.

    “The nanoemulsion developed by Dr. Baker has had good initial results,” said a DARPA spokesman, adding that it is undergoing further evaluation by the U.S. Army Institute of Surgical Research at Fort Sam Houston in Texas.

    Tests by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, under the Department of Defense, have shown that the emulsion acts as a decontamination agent.

    NanoBio’s second product, a vaccine that can be sprayed in the nose to provide immunity for chemical and biological agents, is still undergoing university research and is at least two years from the marketplace, said Annis.

    Annis said that so far he has been unable to find a competitor for NanoBio’s biological decontaminants.

    Nanoscale Materials Inc., of Manhattan, Kan., says it will have two nanocrystal products — a skin cream and a spray applied from a fire extinguisher-type canister — on the market in the first quarter of next year that will give protection against chemical agents.

    NanoProtect is a water and oil emulsion, with droplets in the 200- to 400-nanometer range. According to Annis, the size of the droplets’ molecules allows them to bond to and destroy surface membranes of a wide range of agents, including anthrax spores, and the smallpox and Ebola viruses.

    “On a small scale, it sort of blows up the microbe,” said Annis.

    The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington has changed the company’s market focus from civilian to military applications. Because of DARPA’s role, Annis said, he first approached potential military funding sources a year ago. Funding is needed for further toxicity tests to win approval for use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

    “But there was no particular timeline we could determine, with the exception of the Army, which planned on rolling out a de-con product in 2006. I knew then that the government was not a marketplace,” he said.

    But since Sept. 11, that has all changed.

    Annis said he expects government funding will accelerate the time to market from at least 18 months to less than a year.

    In September, the U.S. General Accounting Office said that the federal government will spend $156.8 million this fiscal year on technology to fight biological agents. That is up more than 11 percent from the $141.2 million spent last year.

    NanoBio’s patent covers applications for antiviral, antisporicidal, antifungal and antibacterial applications. Annis said there are about 300 different product formulations, most of which still have to undergo toxicity studies.

    The generally agreed upon qualification of a nanomaterial is 100 nanometers in diameter or smaller. While NanoProtect doesn’t quite qualify, Annis said other products will have eventually have droplets as small as five nanometers.

    Annis said the company will license its technology to pharmaceutical companies and makers of a wide variety of consumer products. “We’re a technology company. We have no plans to manufacture,” he said.

    The company claims its formulations can be used in acne products, mouthwash and toothpaste, as a spermicide, for treatment of herpes 1 and 2, on nonporous kitchen surfaces, in detergents, to purify water, in food processing and in medical labs.

    “It’s a platform technology. There are so many applications, it will keep us busy for a while,” said Annis.

    According to research by Baker’s team at U-M, the emulsions have a shelf life of two years and virtually no toxicity.

    NanoBio has received a $900,000 grant to investigate applications for food safety by the Michigan Life Sciences Corridor, a $1 billion consortium of research organizations, including U-M. It was organized the Michigan Economic Development Corporation.

    • DXer said

      The method dates to 1997.

      Methods of inactivating bacteria including bacterial spores
      United States Patent 6015832

      http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6015832.html

      Inventors:
      Baker Jr., James R. (Ann Arbor, MI)
      Wright, Craig D. (Gaithersburg, MD)
      Hayes, Michael M. (Ypsilanti, MI)
      Hamouda, Tarek (Ypsilanti, MI)
      Brisker, Joan (Silver Spring, MD)
      Application Number:
      09/002228
      Filing Date: 12/31/1997

      • DXer said

        Part of my early learning on the subject was reading a journal on the floor in the basement of Upstate Medical at the library. It was the hard copy of The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 1999; 180; 1939-1949.

        The article was titled “A Novel Surfactant Nanoemulsion with Broad-Spectrum Sporicidal Activity against Bacillus Species.”

        That article was then the only peer-reviewed article produced by the DOJ in its thousands of pages. That should tell you something.

        In a footnote the article stated:

        “Presented in part: 98th general meeting of the American Society for Microbiolgy, Atlanta, May 1998. (poster A49); 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Diego, September 1998 (late-breaker slide session II, LB-9); 99th general meeting of the American meeting of the American Society for Microbiology, Chicago, May 1999 (poster A300).”

        I wanted the presentations from University of Michigan but they blew off the FOIA.

    • DXer said

      This is all open source (including Tarek thanking Ivins for the virulent Ames) and so it is quite remarkable that the FBI did not come to learn about — judging from what they have produced — until February 2005.

      https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4bd8kLXL2TgJ:www.fredericknewspost.com/media/pdfs/ivins_investigation_9.PDF+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgASHoQ7vMB–l58rh1XG2SiXDiE24vO1VMRGwNebq_WA7nY7ZO_fP_tARjWkV2Yyj0x91F0R6-HnPWy9U_CTtZOroJfvGaquNW6kSI3GmJt-Of14IxgiTJTsr5lUw-Yt3jgNDS&sig=AHIEtbQQDPy9n_qdMoLtBd5ODFhbThem2Q

      It’s as if they were barking up the wrong tree for 4 years.

      Were they thrown off the scent by the father of Al-Timimi’s pro bono lawyer, Daniel Seikaly, who has pled the Fifth Amendment to all questions about the hyped leaks about anthrax smelling bloodhounds? He was the lead prosecutor for many years in the Amerithrax investigation.

  9. DXer said

    Even though I linked these abstracts and reports to the FOIA office staff member who contacted me, the Director Deborah Y. Dietrich responded (in a letter signed by someone else whose name I can’t make out) , in a letter dated October 21, 2009:

    “Based on that conversation, my staff attempted to locate information related to a product named Nanoprotect. No information or documents in our office were located related to that product.”

  10. DXer said

    University of Michigan failed to provide any of the requested documents — under the contract, the University of Michigan directly shared in the profits from the decontamination product.

    http://quod.lib.umich.edu/u/umregproc/ACW7513.2000.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext

    July Meeting, 2000 2. The service to be provided is an extension of an existing lease for five years, the addition of 35,391 square feet of new space and the termination of 11,500 feet of existing space. The additional space will be leased at a rate of $64,744 per month; the space being terminated was leased at a rate of $51,248 per month. 3. The pecuniary interest arises from the fact that William C. Martin, a University of Michigan employee, is the sole limited partner of First Properties Associates. Proposed License Agreement between the University of Michigan and Nanobiologics, LLC On a motion by Regent White, seconded by Regent McGowan, the Regents unanimously approved a license agreement between the University of Michigan and Nanobiologics, LLC. Regent Deitch announced that he would abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. The vote was then taken and the motion was approved unanimously. Because the owners of the companies, James R. Baker, Jr., and Tarek Hamouda, are also University of Michigan employees, this agreement falls under the State of Michigan Conflict of Interest Statute. The following information is provided in compliance with statutory requirements: 1. Parties to the agreement are the Regents of the University of Michigan and Nanobiologics, LLC. 2. Terms of the agreement include: Field of use will encompass all fields. The grant will be an exclusive worldwide license, with a right to grant sublicenses. The license fee will involve an initial payment of $15,000 to $20,000* made by the end of the year 2000. These monies will constitute partial reimbursement of current patent costs. Maintenance fees will be $50,000 to $100,000* per year to be offset by research grant revenue. All remaining current and future patent costs will be paid by Nanobiologics, LLC; 2-7%* equity is to be held by the University of Michigan in Nanobio; Royalties will be 2-7%* on Net Sales of Products. The first approximately $200,000 in royalties would be offset by patent costs. Sublicensing royalties will be 50% of Gross Sublicense Revenue; Performance criteria: Specified milestones must be met in order to maintain the rights granted by the license; The University will retain ownership of the licensed technology and may continue to further develop it and use it as a research tool. No use of University services or facilities, nor any assignment of University employees, is obligated under the agreement; *Final figures will be negotiated by the University’s Technology Management Office before a contractual agreement is concluded with Nanobio. 3. Dr. James Baker’s pecuniary interest arises from his ownership in the companies. He has waived any personal participation in the sharing of funds received by the University from Nanobiologics/Nanobio as a result of this license agreement. Dr. Tarek Hamouda’s pecuniary interest arises from his ownership in the companies.

  11. DXer said

    EPA/2005 — Determine and Confirm the Field Use Protocol for NANOProtect .…

    http://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/242799
    NanoBio Corporation’s antimicrobial nanoemulsion technology was developed by Dr. James R. Baker at the University of Michigan Medical School over a period of seven years.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: