Review of Program NP104:  Veterinary, Medical and Urban Entomology

Introduction:   A panel of 9 scientists convened on 2-3 Aug 07 at USDA National Headquarters in Beltsville, MD, to conduct a 5 year retrospective review of concordance between progress outlined in the Accomplishment Report for 2002-2006 and Goals outlined in the Action Plan published in August 2003.  Initial guidance for panel review was presented in a Briefing on 2 Aug 07 by Dr. Steve Kappes (Deputy Administrator, Animal Products) and Dr. Daniel Strickman (National Program Leader).  Preliminary panel findings were summarized on 3 Aug 07 in a debriefing to Dr. Caird Rexroad (Associate Administrator), Dr. Kappes and Dr. Strickman.

The scope of NP104 was broad consisting of 30 projects done at 12 locations throughout the USA and Panama.  Research and development emphasized protection of humans and animals thereby improving the quality of life and encouraging animal production.  The range of pest and vector arthropods included those species affecting animal and human health as well as structural pests such Formosan termites and red imported fire ants.  The Action Plan followed an integrated pest management (IPM) approach which was defined by NP104 staff as risk assessment, surveillance, control, and monitoring.   Within this framework projects within the Action Plan were organized into four major components:  1) Ecology and Epidemiology, 2) Detection and Surveillance Technology, 3) Biology and Physiology, and 4) Control Technology.  Projects within the Action Plan were derived from two workshops attended by stakeholder groups who provided input on how the ARS could best address their perceived needs.  Five of the projects were mandated by Congress, including the Deployed Warfighter Protection Program [DWFP]. 

Panel:  Nine scientists were selected to review and discuss the research summarized in the Accomplishment Report and attached bibliography and determine progress in relation to the NP104 Program Action Plan.  The panel possessed expertise in the following areas:  arbovirology, attractants and repellents, acarology and associated diseases, veterinary entomology, mosquitoes and associated disease ecology, higher Diptera, urban entomology and military entomology.  Detailed comments were written by experts in each of the specific areas and then reviewed by the entire panel.

Report structure.   The Accomplishment Report provided by Dr. Strickman was complete, well written and carefully addressed the Action Plan, but the report organization made it difficult to trace specific programs fragmented through the four IPM components.  Excellent work on fire ants, for example, contained all components of a successful IPM program, but it was hard for the panel to trace and discuss this work coherently. These programmatic divisions resulted in some redundancy of accomplishments among report sections.  There was excellent agreement between the components of the Action Plan and the Accomplishment Report, indicating that NP104 was responsive to stakeholder requests and that the Program and inclusive laboratories adhered to overall National Program direction.  However, examination of the research papers listed in the Bibliography indicated considerable divergence into research areas not strictly included within the Plan and not discussed in detail within the Report.  Some segments of the Accomplishment Report did a much better job than others of describing the activities and citing recently published work, which made it easier to attribute progress toward the stated goals. Consistency in this regard should be encouraged in future Accomplishment Reports. Although stakeholder input is critical for program relevance and support, the panel recognized that the ARS research scientists and National Program staff ultimately are responsible and best qualified to shape these requests into structured programs containing a necessary balance of basic and applied research and translational development.

Overall comments.   The Panel felt that the over-reaching programs could be divided into areas considered to be strong with high impact, areas at the ‘cross roads’ with variable impact or needing re-direction, and those with a low potential to produce immediate results. 

 Strong areas:

• Red imported fire ant ecology, biology and control
• Tick programs, especially Boophilus
• Four poster control technology
• Boophilus genomics and potential for future applications
• Tick and Lyme Disease ecology in the NE
• Translation research from resistance mechanisms of cattle to Horn flies to cattle breeding programs
• Use of landscape and climate modeling to forecast risk and focus control
• Discovery of insecticides with new mode of action

Areas at the ‘cross-roads’ that need possible course correction:

• Mosquito semiochemicals – attractants and repellents
• Positive:  entomological personnel and facilities, but behavioral [sensory] physiologist is needed to enhance assessment capability
• Negative:  ARS has identified many compounds, but no organized translational program to move these products forward or down scale to useful products is evident.  A ‘pipeline’ is needed to systematically evaluate what has been found.
• End point:  Determine is this long term program should have an end point or go on indefinitely.
• Termites.  Consider modeling this program after the red imported fire ant program.
• Control.  Program is controlling termites in New Orleans as mandated
• Research.  Not using current funding opportunity to carefully evaluate new control strategies to generate data of broader utility. 
• Biological control efforts
• Filth flies.  Good products and research, but slow translation to control programs
• Mosquitoes.  Search for biocontrol agents has long history but has not provided new control methods for mosquito control program.  Good research done on a difficult topic with a low potential for success.
• Ants.  Good research producing useful products for red imported fire ants
• Termites.  Slow progress, perhaps because termites are a more difficult target.

Research with low probability to produce immediate products.

• Proteonomics.  Research has provided considerable information about arthropod genetics and mechanistic biology, but this research is not likely to provide immediate products and the likelihood for effective vaccine development is low.

The Panel identified the following areas that were not addressed by the NP104 research agenda that should be considered for inclusion in the future Action Plan:

·         Sandfly biology, ecology, control

·         Emerging urban invasive problems [bed bugs, human body and head lice]

·         Cultural control and environmental management – research to produce design and management practices that can prevent/reduce problems such as filth flies

·         Insecticide delivery systems – improve and evaluate epidemic intervention strategies

o        Barrier treatments for fly, mosquito and sand fly control

o        ULV adulticides

·         Role of flies and cockroaches in the dissemination of enteric pathogens