Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Fwd: Biodefence Contravenes Biosafety

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Thu, 28 Aug 2003 14:14:20 +0100

 

Biodefence Contravenes Biosafety

press-release

 

The Institute of Science in Society

Science Society Sustainability

http://www.i-sis.org.uk

 

General Enquiries sam

Website/Mailing List press-release

ISIS Director m.w.ho

===================================================

 

 

Biodefence Contravenes Biosafety

********************************

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho (m.w.ho) reports on mounting tension between civil

society watchdogs and secrecy surrounding biodefence labs, which provides a test

case for how much civil society is entitled to know about biodefence research

 

For nearly a year since 16 September 2002, the Sunshine Project and other civil

society watchdogs on bioweapons research in the United States have tried to get

information on the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) of the University of

Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), including its list of members,

policies, minutes of meetings and documents on decisions made. UTMB is one of

the intended ‘biodefence’ level 4 labs that will do research on the most deadly

pathogens (see previous article). The watch-dog organisations want to ensure

that biodefence projects do not undermine arms control treaties nor endanger

communities that surround the facilities conducting biodefence research.

 

Under the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines, the research

institution funded by the NIH is encouraged, though not required, to open its

Institutional Biosafety Committee meetings to the public. However, when

requested, the institution is required to make available to the public all IBC

meeting minutes and any documents submitted to or received from funding

agencies. The institution is also required to file an annual report with the

NIH, which includes a roster of all IBC members with biographical sketches.

 

Furthermore, all NIH funded projects involving recombinant DNA techniques must

comply with the NIH guidelines, and non-compliance may result in suspension,

limitation or termination of financial assistance, or a requirement for prior

NIH approval of any or all recombinant DNA projects at the institution.

 

Between 16 September 2002 and 23 Jan 2003, 4 requests for information were sent

by the coalition of public watchdogs to UTMB by e-mail and/or fax, to which no

response, or no germane response were made. On 18 Feburary 2003, an open letter

was sent to UTMB, to request that the UTMB pledges that its Center for

Biodefense " will maintain a fully transparent Biosafety Committee that will

review and (dis)approve all projects to be conducted in the BL3 and BL4

facilities, and that all Biosafety Committee documentation will be made

concurrently available to the entire public, and that any member of the public

will have the right to attend all portions of all committee meetings " .

 

On 27 February, this same request was filed under Texas Public Information Act,

and forwarded by UTMB to Richard Moore, UTMB Vice President for Business and

Administration. Moore’s job duties include appointing members of the UTMB IBC.

But UTMB responded by denying that a record exists on the institutional

affiliations and qualifications of the IBC members.

 

Another request for the same was filed under the Texas Public Information Act on

3 July 2003. The final disposition of this request is awaiting a ruling by the

Texas Attorney General scheduled to be made on or before 22 September 2003.

There is currently a stand-off between the two sides. Despite repeated e-mails

and telephone calls, UTMB has refused to release any information to the

coalition.

 

On 6 August, the coalition of bioweapons watchdogs issued a press release

calling for the NIH to suspend biodefence funding for UTMB over its secrecy

concerning its research on biological weapons agents and its refusal to comply

with federal biosafety guidelines. " The short-term cost to UTMB could be as high

as $250 million and bruised ambitions. But the long-term benefits for all of

establishing higher standards of public accountability at institutions

conducting biodefense research, " says the watchdog coalition, " will be enhanced

peace, security, and safety in the US and around the world. "

 

This latest move came when Ed Hammond of the Sunshine Project petitioned Anthony

Fauci of the National Institute of Allerby and Infectious Disease (NIAID) to

suspend its consideration of UTMB’s applications for a federally-funded

BioSafety Level 4 ‘hot zone’ lab and a regional biodefence research consortium.

Also, on 4 August, the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas filed a legal

brief with the Texas Attorney General supporting the coalition’s demand that

UTMB stop resisting public disclosure of its biosafety committee records.

 

The watchdogs do not oppose biodefence research, and are not accusing UTMB of

developing biological weapons. But they insist that secrecy is the greatest

enemy of biosecurity, or biosafety. They are seeking maximum transparency in all

biodefence labs because openness will give better protection to the communities

that surround the ‘hot zones’ and will help the US come into compliance with the

Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, the critical international treaty that

prohibits development of biological weapons.

 

The coalition is active across the country. UTMB has been singled out for this

action because its transparency and biosafety policies are particularly

unacceptable. Since September 2002, it has refused to substantively answer at

least nine requests for information about its biosafety policies. In the course

of seeking a 100% exemption from public disclosure of information about its

biosafety committee, UTMB has even misled the Texas Attorney General with

respect to federal laboratory safety regulations.

 

UTMB told the Texas Attorney General that its IBC was a " medical committee "

established to monitor experiments on human subjects. This is not true. In fact,

the IBC is set up under a completely different set of federal rules that relate

to protecting people and the environment from being harmed by the escape of

hazardous GMOs - in this case, extraordinarily dangerous GMOs developed in

research on biological weapons agents.

 

This is an important test case for how much US citizens are allowed to know

regarding biodefence research.

 

Dr. Clarence Peters, director for biodefence at the Center for Biodefense and

Emerging Infectious Diseases at UTMB, told United Press International that

releasing the minutes would violate new privacy and security laws.

 

" The reason is that we have some new things that have come along since the [NIH]

guidelines were promulgated. We have the Homeland Security Act, and the Texas

Homeland Security Act - not the same as the federal one - the USA Patriot Act,

the Texas Public Information Act and the Health Insurance Accountability and

Portability Act. If you get crosswise of some of those you go to jail. "

 

The minutes and other committee documents are supposed to be public under

well-established guidelines issued by the NIH, in place since 1994, which apply

to any NIH-funded research, even research funded in part.

 

Peters said, however, that UTMB had been told specifically not to release the

information by the Texas Attorney General. But although the Attorney General

supported UTMB’s assertion that the material was exempt from release to the

public, the ruling was not based on security or privacy grounds, but on UTMB’s

claims of exemption under Texas law protecting commercially valuable

information.

 

NIH failed to respond to repeated requests for information on the guidelines and

procedures regarding the withholding of funds.

 

The coalition of bioweapons watchdogs is following other biodefence projects

across the country, including the US Army’s Dugway Proving Ground (Dugway, UT),

and proposed Biosafety Level 4 labs in Boston, MA, Davis, CA, and Hamilton, MT.

It is also engaged with the Department of Energy over its plans to build

Biosafety Level 3 labs at Lawrence Livermore National Lab (Livermore, CA) and

Los Alamos National Lab (Los Alamos, NM).

 

More information can be found on the Sunshine Project website

http://www.sunshine-project.org/biodefense/utmb.html

 

===================================================

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML please let us know.

If you would like to be removed from our mailing list - please reply

to press-release with the word in the subject field

===================================================

CONTACT DETAILS

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR

telephone: [44 20 8643 0681] [44 20 7383 3376] [44 20 7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam

Website/Mailing List press-release

ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

MATERIAL IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON

CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...