America's New National Security Strategy

The research reported here was supported by the Director, Net Assessment and Competitive Strategies Office and Strategic Planning Branch, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Washington, DC; the Defense Policy Office, National Security Council Staff, Washington, DC; and the Defense Nuclear Agency HQ DNAJNASF, Alexandria, VA.Additional Funding/Sponsor: 90-581. Defense Nuclear Agency, HQ/DNA/NASF, 7801 Telegraph Road, Alexandria. VA 22301, MIPR 90-581.Additional Sponsors: Competitive Strategies Office and Strategic Planning Branch within OSD and Defense Policy Office, National Security Council Staff. This is an precis of original report, America Promises to Come Back: A National Strategy.Precis of President Bush's new national security strategy first unveiled in Aspen, Colorado on August 2, 1990, involving a mix of active, reserve, and reconstitutable forces, and General Colin Powell's "base" force. Discussion of parallel .NATO. initiatives, major issues resulting from this new proposed strategy and force structure, including: is the new strategy real, defining new goals and objectives in both programming and war planning, the effect of Operations DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM, new requirements for intelligence, requirements for decision-making, setting technological requirements, research and development, investment strategy, impact upon DoD organization, and a transition period. Impact upon Naval Submarine Community, force structure and missions. Concludes that there are four major critical factors upon which the new strategy depends; (1) the behavior of the USSR (2) the behavior of allies and the Congress (3) the ability of the intelligence community to meet new challenges, and (4), the ability of industry to met new demands./ Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

A Doctrine Reader: The Navies of United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and Spain

In March 1993. the United States Navy and Marine Corps established the Naval Doctrine Command as the primary authority for the development of naval concepts and integrated naval doctrine. It has several specific roles-serving as the coordinating authority for the development and evaluation of Navy service-unique doctrine. providing a coordinated Navy-Marine Corps voice in joint and combined doctrine development. and ensuring that naval and joint doctrine are addressed in training and education curricula and in operations. exercises. and war games.https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/usnwc-newport-papers/1008/thumbnail.jp

In Vitro and In Vivo Efficacy of Monepantel (AAD 1566) against Laboratory Models of Human Intestinal Nematode Infections

Soil-transmitted helminthiases affect more than one billion people among the most vulnerable populations in developing countries. Currently, control of these infections primarily relies on chemotherapy. Only five drugs are available, all of which have been in use for decades. None of the drugs are efficacious using single doses against all soil-transmitted helminths (STH) species and show low efficacy observed against Trichuris trichiura. In addition, the limited availability of current drug treatments poses a precarious situation should drug resistance occur. Therefore, there is great interest to develop novel drugs against infections with STH. Monepantel, which belongs to a new class of veterinary anthelmintics, the amino-acetonitrile derivatives, might be a potential drug candidate in humans. It has been extensively tested against livestock nematodes, and was found highly efficacious and safe for animals. Here we describe the in vitro and in vivo effect of monepantel, on Ancylostoma ceylanicum, Necator americanus, Trichuris muris, Strongyloides ratti, and Ascaris suum, five parasite-rodent models of relevance to human STH. Since we observed that monepantel showed only high activity on one of the hookworm species and lacked activity on the other parasites tested we cannot recommend the drug as a development candidate for human soil-transmitted helminthiases

A Research Agenda for Helminth Diseases of Humans: Intervention for Control and Elimination

Recognising the burden helminth infections impose on human populations, and particularly the poor, major intervention programmes have been launched to control onchocerciasis, lymphatic filariasis, soil-transmitted helminthiases, schistosomiasis, and cysticercosis. The Disease Reference Group on Helminth Infections (DRG4), established in 2009 by the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR), was given the mandate to review helminthiases research and identify research priorities and gaps. A summary of current helminth control initiatives is presented and available tools are described. Most of these programmes are highly dependent on mass drug administration (MDA) of anthelmintic drugs (donated or available at low cost) and require annual or biannual treatment of large numbers of at-risk populations, over prolonged periods of time. The continuation of prolonged MDA with a limited number of anthelmintics greatly increases the probability that drug resistance will develop, which would raise serious problems for continuation of control and the achievement of elimination. Most initiatives have focussed on a single type of helminth infection, but recognition of co-endemicity and polyparasitism is leading to more integration of control. An understanding of the implications of control integration for implementation, treatment coverage, combination of pharmaceuticals, and monitoring is needed. To achieve the goals of morbidity reduction or elimination of infection, novel tools need to be developed, including more efficacious drugs, vaccines, and/or antivectorial agents, new diagnostics for infection and assessment of drug efficacy, and markers for possible anthelmintic resistance. In addition, there is a need for the development of new formulations of some existing anthelmintics (e.g., paediatric formulations). To achieve ultimate elimination of helminth parasites, treatments for the above mentioned helminthiases, and for taeniasis and food-borne trematodiases, will need to be integrated with monitoring, education, sanitation, access to health services, and where appropriate, vector control or reduction of the parasite reservoir in alternative hosts. Based on an analysis of current knowledge gaps and identification of priorities, a research and development agenda for intervention tools considered necessary for control and elimination of human helminthiases is presented, and the challenges to be confronted are discussed