Boston University can continue construction of its high-profile Level-4 Biosafety laboratory with increased confidence, much to the ire of laboratory opponents, thanks to a recently released report from the National Institutes of Health.
The report, released Aug. 24 after months of research, concluded the construction of a Level-4 laboratory, which deals with some of the world's deadliest pathogens, is just as safe in the city's most densely populated neighborhoods as it would be in a suburban or rural environment.
The biolab, under construction on the BU Medical Center campus in Roxbury, has met opposition from various organizations, scientists and concerned citizens throughout Boston over the past several years and has remained a point of contention since BU received a $128 million construction grant from NIH in 2003.
Despite NIH's positive report, university officials say they believe the criticism will continue throughout the construction process, scheduled for completion in 2008.
"There will be a group who will constantly be unhappy about the presence of this," said Ara Tahmassian, associate vice president for research compliance at BUMC. "[Many opponents] are opposed to it, period. I'm not sure we're going to change any of those minds."
According to the report, NIH collaborated with SUNY-Buffalo and HealthRx Corporation to study various "worst-case scenarios" due to the release of deadly infectious diseases and analyzed the lab's impact on noise, air quality, wildlife and other variables.
Tahmassian said although BU believed the report would confirm favorable initial studies, the university was "relieved" by the results, as some doubt lingered.
In light of the research, he described the NIH as the "world's premier scientific institution" and noted its unbiased, comprehensive research.
"NIH has one vested interest, and that is to retain its integrity," he said. "NIH would not publish a report that is biased one way or the other."
Opponents, however, question the objectivity of a study conducted by the same institute that funds the lab's construction.
"This report was designed to give a pre-determined outcome," said Sheldon Krimsky, interim president of the Council for Responsible Genetics. "I think NIH probably wants to get this facility built, and they're not thinking about anything that could hold it back."
Krimsky, whose organization offers technical and historical support to community activists, criticized NIH's study of dangerous scenarios involving diseases that are less likely to be a threat to a large population.
Instead of analyzing highly infectious diseases that will be studied in the lab, Krimsky said NIH chose to research the possible effects of agents that spread less easily. These pathogens would not affect a densely populated urban area differently than a rural area, he said.
"The question is whether this report is relevant," he said. "Anyone who deals with infectious diseases knows population density is one of first things you think about. . . [NIH] created some scenarios with organisms that don't have high transmitivity.
"Essentially, the density of the population might not matter," he added. "What about other agents that they might be using with higher transmitivity in denser populations?"
Be the first to comment on this article!
Log in to be able to post comments.