Report of Visits and Discussions in Moscow Concerning
Redirection of Russian Biological Defense Scientists
(February 19-28, 1997)

1. Status of Six Initial Projects

The proposals and work plans for the six projects (four at
Koltsovo and two at Obolensk) were revised and re-budgeted in
accordance with NAS recommendations and ISTC requirements, and
the final drafts were then edited to ensure the readability of
the English texts. The edited English versions were provided to
the ISTC Secretariat in the required number of copies, and
Russian versions will be prepared and submitted to the
Secretariat by the institutes in the near future.

While the scientists from Obolensk and Koltsovo arrived in
Moscow with what they thought were final versions, more than
three days of steady effort were required by specialists from
each of the institutes to transform the drafts into acceptable
formats, budgets, and language. Then two days of editing were
required to improve their readability. These activities were made
possible because the Secretariat took the unusual step of
providing space and computer facilities for the effort. In short,
it is not a simple task to prepare a "fundable" proposal when
work stations are in short supply and telephone lines are
disconnected due to problems in paying telephone bills, even at
the ISTC.

The revised proposals now include funds for air fares for
Russians travelling to the United States, but not per diem
allowances which are to be provided by U.S. collaborators. The
proposals also include a one percent fee charged by Russian banks
involved in transferring funds. Consequently, the costs to the
Institutes are slightly higher than previously planned. Assuming
DSWA transfers to an ISTC interest-bearing account all funds for
a project up front, there will be no ISTC fee (other than the
interest) for processing the proposals or assisting in managing
the projects.

2. Vv. t s

Three of the proposals did not have Russian government approval
as of February 27, but such approval was anticipated on February
28 for two (hantavirus and hepatitis C) and on March 3 for one
(brucellosis). After approval is obtained, proposals are assigned
ISTC numbers, the Secretariat prepares cover sheet
recommendations, and the proposals are sent to the ISTC Parties
for approval (by mail), with a 30-day deadline. All six should be
sent during the week of March 3.

3. Launching of the Projects

With approvals in hand, the Secretariat prepares for each
project a Principle Agreement (signed by NAS, ISTC, and the
Institute) and a Project Agreement (signed by ISTC and the
Institute). The Secretariat (Yokoyama) proposed that these |
agreements be signed by all concerned parties at the time of the

1
April Biopreparat-NAS roundtable discussed below which should
allow adequate time to have all problems resolved. Once these
agreements are signed, the ISTC Finance Office (Tunney) will
request DSWA to transfer funds for each project in accordance
with the DSWA-ISTC Memorandum of Agreement, discussed below.
After the funds are transferred, the project begins.

The ISTC secretariat (Yokoyama) concurred in my suggestion to
forego an NAS-ISTC Memorandum of Agreement since the NAS is not
directly involved in transferring funds, and he accepted a number
of suggestions for refining the Model Principle Agreement, as
follows:

The Agreement will go into effect on the day that the
Center notifies the NAS and the Institute that it has
received funds from DSWA.

In the event of termination of the project prior to
completion, unexpended funds and equipment will be
disposed of in accordance with instructions provided by
NAS (which in turn would take instructions from DSWA in
accordance with a proposed amendment to the NAS-DSWA
contract). (Note: Since the equipment may have entered
Russia duty-free, there may be limitations on the
disposition of the equipment.)

NAS may terminate the Agreement if the ISTC or the
Institute fail to comply with the provisions of the
Agreement.

IPR rights will be shared by the Institute and the
NAS, or its designee.

The IPR provisions (Annex II) will be identical to
the provisions in the ISTC Statute with the wording
"Financing Party" being replaced with "Partner."

Annex I will simply incorporate the work plans which
have been developed.

The ISTC will send NAS a revision of Annex II for
consideration, and NAS will inform ISTC if the changes suggested
above are acceptable or if other changes should be made.

4. Project Agreement

Two suggestions are being incorporated into a revision of the
Project Agreement. First, the U.S. Government will have explicit
monitoring and auditing rights, in addition to the rights of the
ISTc which could be interpreted as meaning rights of the
Secretariat. Secondly, the Agreement will enter into force on the
day that the Secretariat informs the NAS and the Institute that
it has received the funds from DSWA for the project. The
Secretariat (Yokoyama) will send NAS a revised draft of the
Agreement for review and modification if necessary.

5. DSWA- e

According to the Secretariat (Tunney), an increase in the
dollar ceiling of the Memorandum may be needed to accommodate:
funds for the NAS projects, if not this year then next year
should the program continue. Assuming that the ceiling problem is

2
resolved, the transfer of funds should be straight forward, with
the Secretariat simply informing DSWA that the Project Agreement
has been signed (the triggering act) and that funds should be
transferred to cover the total costs of the project.

6. Partner Status

During the visit, the Secretariat (Gerard) discovered that
while the EU and Japan had approved Partner status for NAS, the
Russians had lost the NAS paperwork together with paperwork for
Dow Chemical, 3M, and other potential partners. However, during
my visit, the Russians promised to regroup and address the
requests, presumably before the ISTC Board meeting in mid-March.

7. ISTce-s ored £ ation sium

The Secretariat (Kondratenkov) has made impressive progress in
organizing an International Symposium on Dangerous Pathogens in
June in the Volga region near Kirov, with significant
participation by MOD scientists. The Ministry of Defense has
resisted holding the symposium at a military base, on the grounds
that the facilities are in bad shape for an international group.
However, discussions are continuing, and the latest variant
proposes to have two days of meetings at Omutninsk and two days
at a site very close to Kirov.

The next step is for the ISTC Governing Board to approve the
symposium which may require pressure from the U.S. Government
since the Secretariat (Kruchenkov) said that all symposium funds
have been committed. I stated that NAS would contribute up to
$15,000 of the estimated total of $40, 000.

The logistics will be difficult since Omutninsk is a 200-
kilometer bus ride from Kirov which is a 2-3 hour flight from
Moscow. Nevertheless, this remoteness underscores the importance
of the meeting to be held near the location of key MOD and
Biopreparat scientists.

The Secretariat will send us very shortly the latest version of
the agenda. If the Governing Board approves the Symposium, we
will have an opportunity to further influence the agenda, taking
into account the results of the Biopreparat-hosted roundtable
discussed below.

It is not clear how we will transfer funds for the Symposiun.
Presumably, DSWA could handle this simply as another ISTC
project; but other variations might also be considered.

8. : . . ° ; :

Secretariat staff noted two problems encountered in trying to
interest MOD in participation in IStTCc projects. First, military
bases have a special status and requiring ISTC monitoring and
auditing rights at the bases would cause serious administrative
problems. Secondly, MOD scientists carry special "cards" and not
passports; and MOD is not interested in having the contents of
these cards exposed which would be required if they were to be
paid with ISTC funds.

Several approaches to circumvent these problems have been

3
suggested but not yet adopted. MOD scientists could be detailed
to Biopreparat facilities. New buildings could be constructed
just outside the military base. Military personnel could be
issued a second type of identity card which would be accepted by
the banks for payment of salaries.

9. Support t State Committee for Science and Technolo

In separate meetings, both Deputy Prime Minister Vladimir
Fortov and Biology Division Chief Mshenskiy offered to provide
assistance as the bilateral program of redirection develops. They
were pleased to learn of the status of the six projects, and I
urged their support in prompt governmental approval of the three
that had not yet received the State Committee’s stamp. I advised
them both that Biopreparat was currently taking the lead for
bridging the gap to MOD in planning for Phase II and informed
them that should we encounter administrative or other problems,
we will take them up on their offers of assistance.

Meeting at Biopreparat

 professue Yuri Kalinin, Director General of RAO Biopreparat,
received me in the headquarters of Biopreparat--the well
maintained former residence of Count Smirnov who was the founder
of the vodka factory now known as Cristall, located adjacent to
the residence. Staff members Shcherbakov and Zaitsev were also
present. We met in a barren conference room with a few dusty
conversion display products (drugs, medical supplies) piled at
one end of the room. He had done his homework for the 90-minute
meeting, having received our preliminary proposal for a workshop
agenda three days prior to the meeting.

After confirming Biopreparat’s readiness to host a "roundtable"
on April 15-16 in order to discuss future cooperation, he made a
number of suggestions concerning the two-day meeting, with almost
all of the substance of his proposals repackaged versions of our
proposals. He seemed to have three concerns: (1) he should play a
central role with a keynote speech on the first morning, (2) the
second day should be directed to concrete programs and not
concepts, and (3) the emphasis should be on public health
concerns--in Russia (including within the Army) and throughout
the world.

He proposed to structure the roundtable as follows:

First day: Two keynote overview presentations (U.S. specialist
and Kalinin) followed by ten very brief presentation (5 U.S. and
5 Russian) elaborating on areas mentioned in the keynote
presentations.

Second day: Discussion of concrete programs based on papers
exchanged in advance.

Among the topics he mentioned for the first day were: principal
areas of cooperation including monitoring, diagnostics, and
prophylaxis for infectious diseases; goals of joint programs
including anti-terrorism and public health; approaches to .
addressing problems; institutions which should be involved;
topics that are best addressed by joint programs and those that

4
are best addressed by national programs; relationship of
activities to BW convention; and sources of financing.

Among the topics for the second day were programs for research
in specific areas and programs for epidemiological monitoring.

I indicated that the format he proposed seemed quite
interesting, and he urged me to send him our specific ideas
concerning the packaging of the topics to be considered.

As to attendees, he indicated he would have specialists from
various organizations involved in infectious diseases and other
pathogens. When asked about the MOD, he said that their
specialists would participate "as necessary," with the rather
clear implication that they would be there. He noted that several
bureaucrats from different ministries would be invited since they
would have to approve implementation of any program that was
recommended. He suggested about ten specialists on each side and
indicated they would await our list before putting together their
team. He agreed that we should emphasize individuals who have
practical experience in dealing with dangerous pathogens.

With regard to logistics, he suggested holding the meeting at a
sanatarium in the Moscow area; and he will make inquiries as soon
as we inform him as to the number of participants. He noted that
since this was our initiative, and since they were strapped for
money, we should pay most of the bill. But he added they would
try their best to help. In any event, he will send us an itemized
budget as soon as they make the preliminary arrangements.

Another point concerns Phase 2 and the role of Biopreparat
which is undoubtedly interested in financial benefits not only
for the institutes but also the headquarters. He proposed that we
consider annual conferences to review overall developments in
cooperation and also two to three workshops on different
technical topics each year. He may have in mind that the
organization of these activities would be a role for Biopreparat.

Finally, he urged that at some appropriate time the program be
brought under the Gore-Chernomyrdin umbrella.

GESchweitzer/nrc/oia/ocee
3/3/97