Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2014 | Page 8

FORENSICS JOURNAL

COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE LABORATORY
RESPONSE NETWORK IS AND HOW IT WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN HELPING TO INVESTIGATE THE ANTHRAX
ATTACKS?

STEPHANIE WITT completed her Undergraduate studies in 2008 at the University
of Baltimore, with a B.S. degree in Forensic
Science. She continued her studies at Stevenson University where she received a Master’s
degree in Forensic Science in May 2011.
Stephanie currently works at Stevenson
University as the Assistant to the Dean in the
School of Graduate and Professional Studies.

The Laboratory Response Network was established in January 1999.
The Center for Disease Control (CDC) held a meeting in which
representatives of the major U.S. Laboratories were present including
Department of Defense (DOD), Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) and FBI. The idea was to create a critical component
for the countries readiness to detect and respond to bioterrorism
incidents. The CDC developed corporative agreements with the states
and larger municipalities. The CDC supplied funding to state and
large local public health laboratories to buy state of the art equipment.
The laboratories were also provided with quality-controlled reagents
and standardized protocols for the analysis of each select agent or
pathogen. This allows analytical results to be comparable between
Laboratory Response Network members. In the Anthrax case, it was
the Jacksonville Florida public health laboratory that identified the
first victim. The understanding was that these laboratories could use
the equipment for daily public health, however they would assist in
the event of a bioterrorism incident.
One reason that the Laboratory Response Network was extremely
important during the Anthrax attacks was because once it became
public knowledge that the Anthrax attacks were being conducted
through the mail, the result was a rash of “white powder” letters across
the country. Individuals were sending acquaintances, enemies, businesses, etc. letters filled with white powder. All of these incidents had
to be investigated and the substances had to be tested. The Laboratory Response Network enabled the state public health laboratories to
conduct the analyses. If the Laboratory Response Network was not
available at the time, the national level laboratories at Fort Detrick
and the CDC would have had to analyze about 50-60 thousand additional letters, during November 2001 alone. Instead, the state and
local laboratories that were part of the Laboratory Response Network
were available to test the potential Anthrax using standardized procedures, which greatly lessened the workload of the Federal Laboratories. These hoax incidents often developed into their own criminal
cases requiring the normal police work that accompanies criminal
cases. The Laboratory Response Network members worked with
their local FBI offices to institute procedures for maintaining chain of
custody and evidence control. Thus, if and when charges were filed
against an individual responsible for mailing white powder, the hoax
letter and its contents would be admissible in court.

7