Comments on ‘Some methodological issues in biosurveillance’

Dr Fricker’s paper addresses the practical, multidisciplinary problem of biosurveillance. This field has seen numerous books and journal articles in the past 10 years and is still evolving as a science. Based on his own reading, research, and contacts with those in public health practice (PHP), the author presents his view of the status and needed direction of this field. The remarks below are intended to augment this view from another perspective. Perspective: Following a background in mathematics and 20 years of developing and evaluating detection systems in non-health-related disciplines, I have worked on biosurveillance systems since 2000 while acquiring knowledge in epidemiology and biostatistics related to public health. The recent years have been devoted to the design, development, and evaluation of ESSENCE biosurveillance systems and to consulting for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, now my half-time employer. As a member since 2005 of the Board of Directors of the International Society for Disease Surveillance (ISDS), my role has been liaison to the ISDS Research Committee, which has an international roster of over 130 public health practitioners and academic, government, and industrial researchers. Dr Fricker’s remarks about the need for cross-disciplinary collaboration resonated with efforts over the past 2 years between the ISDS Research and PHP committees to promote research efforts with near-term PHP utility. These efforts have spawned several webinar and conference sessions, most notably a widely advertised and attended event entitled ‘Technical Challenges from the Public Health Practice Community’, whose recording and related products are freely available [1]. The remarks below are heavily influenced by the observations of PHP members from these events and by project-related contacts.