BU Biodefense: Keeping the Public in the Dark?
by Peter Shorett & Sujatha Byravan

As officials at Boston University Medical Center move forward on their proposal to build the nation’s sixth high-security research center on infectious diseases and defenses against biological terrorism, many residents of the South End and the greater Boston region are asking the question: what will this project mean for our community?

In September, when the National Institutes of Health (NIH) makes its final grant decisions, our city may become the recipient of $1.6 billion in federal biodefense dollars, spread over the next two decades. Much of this spending, according to the NIH, will be allocated toward medical research to develop diagnostics, vaccines and therapeutics against a select list of potential biological weapons agents: anthrax, smallpox, plague, botulism, tularemia and viral hemorrhagic fevers. The complex of laboratories in the B.U. Medical Center would include space designed for “Biosafety Level 4” research on the most dangerous of diseases with no known cures or treatments.

On Monday night, B.U. Medical Center held one of its first informational meetings to update community members on the project. Mark Klempner, the Assistant Provost for Research and the scientist heading up the federal proposal, told those in the audience that he and others have made a good faith effort to reach community groups and business leaders to address concerns surrounding the new facility. Indeed, they claim to have fifty letters (none of which are currently available to the public) from housing associations, community development corporations, civic groups, and city agencies supporting the proposed research. But many residents in surrounding neighborhoods have only recently heard about this facility.

Biosafety Level 4 labs could pose significant safety and security risks during transportation of pathogens. For example, a package containing the West Nile Virus exploded on March 20th in a Federal Express building in Columbus, Ohio. Additionally, researchers exposed to biological agents could represent a public health threat to the nearly six million residents that live within commuting distance of the proposed facility. According to federal guidelines, Level 4 pathogens pose a “high risk of exposure and infection to personnel, the community and the environment.” In addition, researchers who work in such facilities become familiar with the use of such dangerous pathogens and could use them against others. These concerns are backed by recent confirmation that the anthrax used in the post-September 11th mail attacks came from a federal biodefense laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland.

Boston University’s proposed facility is part of a larger plan to redevelop portions of the neighborhood bordering the South End and Roxbury as a home for biomedical research and development. The city has a history of disregarding the interests of low-income residents and communities of color in the process of land use and development planning, and this is no exception. Journalists have widely reported the efforts of the city to limit community involvement in development negotiations. Meetings between local residents and the Boston Redevelopment Authority have highlighted the need for low-income housing and zoning that provides jobs appropriate for the skill and educational base of the majority of residents. A Biosafety Level 4 laboratory would not meet these requirements.

The Council for Responsible Genetics and other organizations from around the country have called on Boston University to be more transparent in its request for biodefense funding. We do not know details of the university’s 2,000-page proposal to the NIH. The University of California at Davis and University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, have made outlines of their intended research open to the public. We hope that, as indicated by Mark Klempner, BU will make a similar partial disclosure of its plans for the South End facility. Such a move would be fully consistent with federal guidelines. For the South End and the city of Boston to assess the costs and benefits of the facility, more public hearings will be needed. These hearings should be announced weeks ahead of time, widely publicized, and sponsored by independent bodies such as the Boston Public Health Commission and the Boston City Council.

Biological defense research in the United States is clouded in secrecy. The lack of public disclosure in these programs—demonstrated in the Bush Administration’s rejection of the Verification Protocol of the Biological Weapons Convention, which would have mandated inspections and declarations in all biological defense laboratories—has raised alarm both at home and abroad. This context makes it imperative that the BU Medical Center formally commits, as a matter of institutional policy, to not conduct classified research under any circumstances, and to fully disclose all research projects and biological agents housed within its proposed laboratory.

The brewing controversy in the South End highlights the need for public oversight on high-risk biological research. Both Boston and Cambridge passed city ordinances in the 1980s that established committees to monitor the safety of these projects. Cambridge’s experience has shown that an independent body with the authority to enforce regulations provides assurances and predictability for both private and public researchers and community members. Although Boston’s biosafety laws expired in 1993, the current prospect of some of the most exotic and least treatable diseases arriving at our doorstep provides a crucial opportunity for this ordinance to be reinstated. These developments demand broad public debate and participation, and measures that will hold Boston University accountable to its transparency and safety commitments. Our local democracy deserves better than empty assurances.

Peter Shorett is Director of Programs and Sujatha Byravan is Executive Director of the Council for Responsible Genetics in Cambridge, Massachusetts (www.gene-watch.org).