Watchdogs warn against germ warfare research

[Guest guest]

Watchdogs warn against germ warfare research They fear that expansion may increase dangers By Lee DavidsonDeseret News Washington correspondent WASHINGTON ­ Vast expansion of germ warfare defense research proposed at such places as Dugway Proving Ground and Utah State University may create more danger than it prevents, a coalition of watchdog groups said Monday. They say it may train more people in germ weaponry, while signs indicate that anthrax attacks last year came from an "insider" in U.S. defense research. They say it also increases chances of accidental releases to nearby areas, may unnecessarily duplicate work, and may create far more facilities than needed. "The number of new biodefense biosafety level 3 and 4 laboratories being developed far exceeds what is prudent and necessary," said Steve Erickson of the Citizens Education Project in Utah, one of eight watchdog groups banding together to question such expansion. Utah State University officials last week said they are considering applying for money for a BL-4 lab, which uses the strictest safety precautions possible ­ and allows work with germs that may cause diseases for which no cures or vaccines are known. Public opposition defeated a proposed BL-4 lab at Dugway in 1988. Meanwhile, the coalition said Dugway Proving Ground has proposed to vastly expand biodefense work and enlarge its BL-3 facilities, which are not quite as stringent as BL-4 and allow work only with germs for which vaccines and cures are available. The coalition said numerous similar proposals are being made nationwide. It says Congress may not be looking at the whole picture while individual labs fight for funding as part of an effort to beef up amid terrorist threats. "We are asking Congress to freeze biodefense laboratory construction until a cross-cutting federal review ensures that the massive new investment isn't going awry and wouldn't be better spent elsewhere," Erickson said. Edward Hammond of The Sunshine Project in Texas said, "Government and academic labs are responding less to bona fide needs than the urge to build power and revenue centers for what they hope is a perpetual biodefense boom. This will result in a dangerous proliferation of bioweapons agents and the knowledge to use them." Colin Kind of Nuclear Watch of New Mexico added, "Too many agencies want too many facilities, likely leading to duplication and unnecessary danger. Agencies are confusing the public by trying to gain lab approval on a one-by-one basis, obfuscating the risks and ramifications of large national programs." Erickson said environmental impact studies for Dugway, which he says is proposing a 200 percent increase in biodefense activity, show the government may be giving inadequate oversight of new proposals. "The (draft environmental impact statement) is 1,000 pages long, but it's so vague that it's impossible to fairly assess what the Army wants to do," he said. "They want to conduct many more in-lab and open-air tests but won't say with what and when or under what conditions until future plans and studies are completed and rubber-stamped by the brass. There is no independent oversight of this facility," he said. Other members of the coalition include the Coalition for a Safe Lab in Montana; the Los Alamos Study Group in New Mexico; and from California, the Physicians for Social Responsibility in the San Francisco Bay area, Tri-Valley CAREs and the Western States Legal Foundation. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,410019258,00.html