May 22, 2008

New Animal-Research Lab Carries Safety Risks, Report Says

Federal authorities have not adequately examined whether a proposed federal laboratory to study dangerous animal diseases can be safely located on the United States mainland without risking livestock nearby, the Government Accountability Office concluded in a report issued today. All five proposed sites would be operated by universities, either individually or in consortia.

The new facility would replace one now operated by the Department of Homeland Security on Plum Island, a secure, federally owned site off Long Island. Plum Island is the only approved site in this country for research on foot-and-mouth disease, which does not affect human beings but is the most highly infectious animal disease and can kill cattle, sheep, and pigs.

The department views the Plum Island facility as outdated and last year named candidates to house a replacement, to be called the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility. They are Kansas State University and the University of Georgia and consortia in Mississippi, North Carolina, and Texas. The department intends to pick a location for the $450-million facility in October.

Moving the facility from an island to the mainland could increase the risk of accidental infection of livestock nearby. A 2002 analysis of the risk, commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security, was “selective” and “inaccurate,” the GAO report says. That analysis, for example, did not consider past, accidental releases of foot-and-mouth virus from labs in seven other countries.

The last natural outbreak of the disease in the United States was in 1929.

A “biosafety” lab proposed by Boston University to study lethal human diseases has drawn community opposition and lawsuits. That facility would study more-dangerous pathogens, under tighter security and physical containment, than would the animal lab. —Jeffrey Brainard

Comments

1. Regarding the preceding comment on Obama’s “lack of experience”: I’d just note that Senator Obama has much more federal-level experience than did the current incumbent when he took over. If one is counting governorship as a much better way of preparing than federal service, then I suspect that the writer is a huge fan of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

   — Bob M.    May 23, 07:24 AM    #

2. Since we have turned the topic of this blog from an evironmental and health issue into a political one, let’s not fail to incriminate and condemn the current idiot(s) in the White House. the fact that ANY legislator, politician or supposed educated human being CANNOT or WILL NOT see the potential for disaster in moving this facility is bordering on mentally challenged – at best. All one needs to do is read the GAO report, look at how Australia deals with FMD at thier BSL- 4, state-of-the-art facility, then do the math (we are only going to build a BSL-3 facility at the whopping cost expected to exceed $451 million dollars) and then decide what is best.

   If you all can’t figure it out. I’ll make it easy and tell you. REBUILD THE FACILITY EXACTLY WHERE IT ALREADY IS. I’m sure $451 million will be sufficient to improve upon what is already a proven facility.

   — Lori O    May 23, 03:49 PM    #

3. This is the first mention I have heard that a university or consortium will “operate” NBAF.

   To the best of my knowledge, it will be run similar to Plum Island with DHS in control. Part of the workforce might come under a private company.

   I think you might need to print a correction. Or at least document where you got that information.

   — Athens Resident    May 23, 06:46 PM    #

Previous: Can Shorter Classes Mean More Learning?
Next: Drexel U. to Offer Master's Programs in Sacramento