鈥淚NDIVIDUALS will be mentally alert, mentally and emotionally stable, trustworthy, physically competent, and free of unstable medical conditions,鈥� reads the US army regulation covering scientists working on lethal bacteria, viruses and toxins. It鈥檚 hard to reconcile this description with the picture that emerges of the late Bruce Ivins, accused of killing five people in the anthrax attacks of October 2001.
suggest that Ivins, who worked on anthrax vaccines at the ) at Fort Detrick, Maryland, had a troubled psychiatric history long before his descent into suicide last month. In a , he confided to a friend: 鈥淓ven with the Celexa [an antidepressant] and the counseling, the depression episodes still come and go. That鈥檚 unpleasant enough. What is REALLY scary is the paranoia.鈥�
So why was Ivins allowed to carry on working with anthrax? Before the 2001 attacks, screening of employees consisted only of security checks and a medical evaluation. Since 2003, USAMRIID has run a biological personnel reliability programme, described in . Even this leaves much to be desired, say experts in psychological screening consulted by New 杏吧原创.
Advertisement
One problem is that evaluations are usually run by a direct supervisor, who not only lacks expertise in mental health but, as a colleague, may be reluctant to delve into personal matters. 鈥淪uch evaluations should be made from an independent standpoint,鈥� argues Gary Hazlett, a psychologist formerly with the army鈥檚 John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and now a personnel screening consultant.
Screening specialists are concerned that USAMRIID does not require the involvement of an independent clinical psychologist who would typically deploy a test such as the to help make an evaluation. The MMPI, which contains more than 500 questions, is designed to identify people with psychiatric problems by looking for deviations from the norm on a series of scales, including paranoia and depression.
The MMPI is not infallible, but it has been shown to produce better results than a simple interview. It is often used to help evaluate people doing jobs in which they have the potential to endanger others, such as police officers and airline pilots.
Psychologists are also concerned that routine re-evaluations at USAMRIID, scheduled to take place once every five years, may not happen often enough. 鈥淎 lot can happen in five years,鈥� says Leaetta Hough, whose consulting firm in St Paul, Minnesota, has designed screening programmes for employees at nuclear facilities. She suggests re-evaluating staff every three years. Other experts urge more frequent assessment.
Some labs working on hazardous materials do screen more regularly. At the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, nuclear weapons researchers are evaluated by a psychologist every year, and take the MMPI test every third year.
USAMRIID declined to respond to the criticisms but says that the army is reviewing its screening procedures.
Difficulties in retaining staff may have discouraged more rigorous screening at the lab. In the 2007 book , USAMRIID鈥檚 deputy commander for safety writes: 鈥淭he possibility of losing talented and well-trained researchers to other facilities鈥� with less stringent programs鈥� may impact the ability of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency to provide research personnel to combat biological agent use.鈥�
