Features

The anthrax that killed a Florida man was not stolen from a Department of Energy laboratory. It most certainly was not manufactured from scratch by terrorists. 

And now some scientists are saying it may not even have any connection to Iowa, as earlier reported. 

As misinformation and theories abound about the origin of the anthrax found in the offices of a Boca Raton, Fla., supermarket tabloid, scientists are using new methods to compare the genetic fingerprint of the anthrax spores to known strains of the bacteria. 

Microbiologist Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University has created a genetic profile of the anthrax discovered there and is now comparing it to other strains, said Martin Hugh-Jones, a close colleague of Keim and a professor of epidemiology at Louisiana State University. 

Using genetic fingerprinting, “you can pinpoint a strain of anthrax to its geographic origin or perhaps even to its laboratory origin,” said Scott Layne, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California at Los Angeles. 

So far Keim has declined to talk about his work, citing national security concerns. 

“I’ve seen many reports in the media saying that we’re involved in this investigation but I will assure that there’s been no confirmation of that from anyone at this university,” Keim said during a briefing at the school’s Flagstaff, Ariz., campus Thursday. “It would be irresponsible for me to confirm that type of situation given that there’s an ongoing criminal investigation.” 

But Hugh-Jones said that if the bacteria used in Florida belonged to any well-known strain, Keim would have identified it right away. 

“From all the fancy footwork, it’s clear that they didn’t get an exact match,” Hugh-Jones said. 

He and other experts declined to speculate how long it could take to identify the Florida strain that killed Robert Stevens, a photo editor for The Sun. Anthrax spores were also found on Stevens’ computer keyboard, and two of his co-workers were found to have inhaled some of the spores. They are being treated with antibiotics. 

The FBI is investigating how and why the anthrax got into the newspaper offices, but they said they could not tie it to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington. 

Earlier this week a federal official who asked not to be identified told The Associated Press that the Florida anthrax was similar to a strain collected in Iowa during the 1950s. That led to speculation that the attackers could have used the “Ames strain,” an especially virulent form of anthrax taken from a sick animal at Iowa State University about that time. There were even erroneous reports that it might have been stolen from an Iowa laboratory. 

But the FBI put those stories to rest on Thursday. 

“At this time there is no information concerning any link to Iowa,” said Larry Holmquist, an FBI spokesman in Omaha, Neb. 

Vito Del Vecchio, a bacteriologist at the University of Scranton in Pennsylvania, said Thursday that federal authorities have asked him to apply a second DNA fingerprinting method to the Florida samples, an indication that their identity probably has not yet been pinpointed. 

Keim and Hugh-Jones have been working for about eight years to create DNA fingerprints of as many anthrax strains as they can. So far, they have succeeded with more than 400 strains, a fraction of the many hundreds that are thought to exist. 

In May 2000, the researchers published an anthrax family tree in the Journal of Bacteriology that showed the genetic relationships of 89 strains. Hugh-Jones said that tree could be enormously valuable in narrowing down potential sources of the anthrax. 

“Even if it’s not exact,” Hugh-Jones said, “we can say, ’OK, if it’s between this and that, this is where we’ll find it.’ ” 

Even a decade ago it would have been very difficult to identify an anthrax strain with such precision. But DNA fingerprinting gives such a distinctive result that it amounts to a smoking gun. 

“I think it would be very dangerous for anybody to be found with this,” Hugh-Jones said. “They’d have an awful lot of explaining to do.”