The Demon in the Freezer

Which proposed approach to smallpox was more sensible, eradicating the virus outright (Henderson’s approach) or preserving smallpox for research (closer to Jahrling’s approach)?

How would The Demon in the Freezer be different without the descriptions of the scientists’ personal lives, particularly Jahrling’s and Hensley’s? Do these descriptions improve or weaken Preston’s text?

Did Preston make the right choice in arranging his book in a non-chronological fashion, or would it have been better for him to arrange his chapters chronologically?

What, on the basis of Preston’s book, are the factors that make a biological weapons attack so fearsome—beyond the initial casualties?

Do you agree with the book’s view of smallpox as one of the most fearsome biological terrorism threats? Or are other threats (such as anthrax) greater cause for concern?

What exactly is Richard Preston’s personal role in the text, and how does his involvement as a first-person witness enhance The Demon in the Freezer?

How does Preston keep the anthrax letters discussion suspenseful and interesting? Keep in mind that he is mostly describing well-publicized events that transpired several years ago.

The Demon in the Freezer discusses the activities of a number of researchers. Would it have been better to focus exclusively on the perspective of one figure from the book, such as Jahrling, Henderson, or Hensley?