KASU

Policy On High-Risk Biological Research Tightened

Mar 30, 2012
Originally published on March 30, 2012 9:10 am

The Obama administration has announced a new policy to handle the risks posed by legitimate biological research that could, in the wrong hands, threaten the public.

The move comes in response to a huge debate over recent experiments on bird flu virus that got funding from the National Institutes of Health. Critics say the work created mutant viruses that could potentially be dangerous for people, or give terrorists a road map for making a bioweapon.

A committee that advises the government, the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), is again meeting Friday to discuss those flu studies. Late last year, it recommended keeping some details secret. But a panel of experts, including flu virologists assembled by the World Health Organization, called for full publication.

The new policy is aimed at preventing this kind of controversy from happening in the future. It covers federally funded research — both ongoing work and future proposals. And it calls for special reviews of work that involves a list of 15 particularly nasty pathogens and toxins, including highly pathogenic bird flu virus, anthrax and Ebola.

Funding agencies will have to evaluate certain kinds of experiments to see if they pose special risks. The idea is "to really upfront ask the questions: Should they be done? And if so, under what conditions should they be done," explains Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH.

If an agency wants to fund an experiment that might yield potentially dangerous information, Fauci says, scientists could be asked to hold back on publishing details in order to receive funding.

Or, in some cases, the work might need to be classified. Fauci notes that the NIH does not do classified studies. "We would have to refer it to an agency that does classified research, because we don't," he says.

He says the NIH has already taken a look at the ongoing projects it has funded and believes very few will need more scrutiny under the new policy.

"We're not talking about a very large number of studies that are going to get looked at again and might be altered," Fauci says. "We are talking about really, really a little bit more than a handful of studies among hundreds of grants."

And so far, he says, it doesn't look like even these raise significant concerns.

The new policy was welcomed by Richard Ebright, a chemistry professor at Rutgers University who has long called for better control of biological research that could be misused.

"My first reaction was that this is an important step forward — an overdue step, but an important one," Ebright says.

He notes that a high-profile panel of experts recommended that the government set up a comprehensive oversight system back in 2004. "It was widely expected that a policy would be developed and announced perhaps in 2004, perhaps in 2005," Ebright says. "We're seeing it now perhaps six years late."

The policy will apply to government agencies ranging from the NIH to the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Homeland Security, he notes. He thinks this policy could prevent another controversy like the one currently swirling around bird flu experiments — but only if agencies take real action.

"If the funding agencies propose only public relations or window dressing as risk mitigation," Ebright says, "then we'll have only public relations and window dressing, and more of these problems arising."

Meanwhile, it's still unclear what will happen with the bird flu studies and the fight over how much information to make public.

The NSABB will wrap up its second meeting on this issue Friday and is expected to again offer advice on whether to publish the full details. But its recommendations are not binding on the government, the scientists or science journals.

Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands, one of the scientists who did the work, spoke earlier this week on a live webcast of a science show called This Week in Virology.

"Regardless of what the U.S. government and Dutch government say, the authors and the journals are going to have the last vote on the publication issue," Fouchier said.

Copyright 2017 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

And a new policy by the Obama administration aims to tighten oversight over potentially high-risk biological research. The change in policy was announced yesterday and it was in response to experiments on the bird flu virus. That research created mutant viruses that could be dangerous to humans and, critics say, potentially be used as biological weapons. Those experiments got funding from the National Institutes of Health. As NPR's Nell Greenfieldboyce reports, the new oversight system is intended to prevent this kind of controversy from happening again.

NELL GREENFIELDBOYCE, BYLINE: The new policy covers federally funding research - both ongoing work and future proposals. It calls for special reviews of work that involves a list of 15 particularly nasty pathogens and toxins, including bird flu virus. Funding agencies will have to evaluate certain kinds of experiments to see if they pose special risks.

ANTHONY FAUCI: To really upfront ask the questions - should they be done, and if so, under what conditions should they be done?

GREENFIELDBOYCE: Anthony Fauci is director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the NIH. He says if an agency wants to fund an experiment that might yield potentially dangerous information, scientists could be asked to hold back on publishing details. Or, in some cases, the work might need to be classified. Fauci notes that the NIH does not do classified studies.

FAUCI: We would have to refer it to an agency that does classified research, 'cause we don't.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: He says the NIH has already taken a look at the ongoing projects it's funded and believes very few will need more scrutiny under the new policy.

FAUCI: We're not talking about a very large number of studies that are going to get looked at again and might be altered. We are talking about really, really a little bit more than a handful of studies among hundreds of grants.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: And so far he says it doesn't look like even these raise significant concerns. The new policy was welcomed by Richard Ebright. He's a professor of chemistry at Rutgers University who has long called for better control of biological research that could be misused.

RICHARD EBRIGHT: My first reaction was that this is an important step forward. An overdue step, but an important one.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: He said expert panels have recommended setting up an oversight system since 2004. He thinks this policy could prevent another controversy, like the one swirling around bird flu experiments, but only if agencies take real action.

EBRIGHT: If the funding agencies propose only public relations or window dressing as risk mitigation, then we'll have only public relations and window dressing and more of these problems arising.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: Meanwhile, it's still unclear what will happen with the bird flu studies. The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity will wrap up its second meeting on this issue today and will offer advice on whether to publish the full details. Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands is one of the scientists who did the work. Earlier this week he spoke on a live webcast of a science show called "This Week in Virology."

RON FOUCHIER: Regardless of what the U.S. government and Dutch government say, the authors and the journals are going to have the last votes on the publication issue.

GREENFIELDBOYCE: That's because whatever the advisory committee decides today is nonbinding. Nell Greenfieldboyce, NPR News. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.