Protestors at BU Biolab. Courtesy of Steph PS @ flickr. Creative Commons.

There’s a common saying that if you can’t measure it, you can’t control it. Leaders of Boston University’s proposed National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories (NEIDL) – known as the BU Biolab – in the densely populated urban environmental justice community of Roxbury/ South End, have asked the state to waive required review of their plans to build a lab involving rare and lethal pathogens even though their prior risk assessments were found inadequate multiple times. In other words, they want to build a risk laden facility without accountability to the public. We oppose the grant of this request.

We Support Secretary Sullivan’s Decision in Favor of Thorough Review

Today advocates in the fight against the Biolab filed joint comments with Secretary Sullivan supporting his draft decision which, if adopted as final later this month, will deny BU’s request to begin high level research before a full risk assessment is reviewed by EOEEA. You can read a copy of our comments here, and find the draft decision here.

Background on the Biolab

The facility would focus its research on biological agents used in acts of bioterrorism – a mission the community fears will bring biodefense research on highly contagious pathogens to their densely populated urban neighborhoods.  Members of the Roxbury/South End communities have expressed vocal opposition to the siting of this facility near their homes and schools.

Biocontainment Safety Level ratings, established by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, increase from 1 to 4 based on the danger associated with research on different biological pathogens and mandate increasing levels of physical protection to prevent a public health crisis in the event that a pathogen leaves the lab (e.g. through transmission from an infected lab worker, an escaped animal subject, or an outbreak resulting from a natural disaster or a malevolent act at the lab). BU’s NEIDL would include research in each of the four Biocontainment Safety Levels.

Research in labs designated as Biocontainment Safety Level 4 (BSL-4), the highest level, includes rare and lethal pathogens, such as ebola. According to BU’s waiver application to EOEEA, their BSL-4 research would involve pathogens that “cause diseases that are usually life-threatening” and are spread through the air or “an unknown cause of transmission.” BU has also quoted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as stating that pathogens appropriate for research in BSL-3 laboratories “cause diseases that may have serious or lethal consequences” and are transmitted through the air.

BU’s Multiple Failures

BU has attempted – multiple times – to explain and justify the risks associated with the NEIDL as required by state and federal statutes. Each time, they have failed and been subject to criticism for the poor quality of their analysis.

Their risk assessments (which must satisfy requirements under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and the National Environmental Policy Act) have been found to be insufficient and not credible by the EOEEA and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, as well as the National Research Council. Each of these failures to acknowledge the risks associated with the NEIDL has alienated the community, resulting in a marked distrust of BU.

BU has now partially completed its third attempt to justify the risks associated with the NEIDL. This time the risk assessment is being conducted by the National Institutes of Health (who provided significant federal funding for the project) and their private consultant, Tetra Tech.

BU’s Request to Limit Review of Risks

Concurrently with their third attempt to justify the risks associated with the NEIDL, BU filed a written request asking Secretary Sullivan to waive the legal requirement for EOEEA review of certain research at the lab. BU’s request applied to all proposed research for the NEIDL except that which would occur in BSL-4 labs.  CLF and other opponents of the lab strongly opposed this request. A waiver from full EOEEA review would deny the Commonwealth the opportunity to ensure that the risks to the surrounding environmental justice community from this facility had been fully considered.

On December 2, in his draft waiver decision and Certificate on Notice of Project Change, Secretary Sullivan allowed lower level research (BSL-1 and 2) to proceed but stated that EOEEA is “legally barred from acting on [BU’s] waiver request for BSL-3 level research until I am able to independently review the risk assessment for the contagious pathogens proposed for study by BU at the Biolab.”

Today CLF joined the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Anderson & Kreiger, a law firm representing the Safety Net, a community group led by local activist Klare Allen, and other affected community members, in submitting written comments to Secretary Sullivan calling upon him to finalize his draft decision denying a waiver of EOEEA review for BSL-3 research at the NEIDL, and reminding him of his charge under the EOEEA Environmental Justice Policy to ensure that this review process provides enhanced public participation opportunities.

As we state in our comments, we thank the Secretary for recognizing that the NEIDL will involve “research on extremely contagious biological agents that could pose serious harm to an already compromised Environmental Justice community.”

What You Can Do:

• A final decision from Secretary Sullivan on BU’s waiver request is expected on December 28. Stay tuned for news about that decision here. A final draft of NIH’s risk assessment is expected to be issued by NIH in the next few months.
• NIH’s Blue Ribbon Panel will come to Hibernia Hall in Roxbury on February 16^th to hold a public meeting and hear comments on NIH’s draft risk assessment for the NEIDL.  CLF will post the date, time, and other details for the public meeting here when they become available.  Mark your calendar and join CLF and its partners in seeking to ensure that this facility does not introduce unnecessary risk to an already overburdened environmental justice community.

In arguments made today before Federal Judge Rya W. Zobel on the federal lawsuit regarding the New England fisheries management system known as Amendment 16, Conservation Law Foundation senior counsel Peter Shelley defended the process in which the new rules were developed and agreed upon at the New England Fishery Management Council and re-affirmed CLF’s support for the Amendment.

Shelley stated, “This lawsuit is not so much about the specific merits of Amendment 16, but more about the integrity of the process by which the new rules were developed and vetted and set into motion. The process, which involved all of the fishing interests, including some who today decry it and the outcome it produced, was fair, rational and legal. New Bedford’s interests were directly represented in those lengthy deliberations and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts participated actively in both the Amendment 16 science decision-making and the policy development. This is the New England Council’s plan, not a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plan.”

“CLF supports the Council’s approval of Amendment 16 not because it is perfect, but because it represents a reasonable decision, reached after an extended transparent public debate that reasonably meets the Magnuson Stevens Act and National Environmental Policy Act requirements while attempting to provide additional flexibility for fishermen in the region to fish more efficiently and profitably if they want to. The related issues of consolidation and fairness in access to fish are on the Council’s plate now and should be carefully analyzed and debated.”

After the hearing, Shelley observed, “What we have learned over the past fifteen years is that strong and effective management of this important public resource, coupled with some degree of luck with Mother Nature, can restore fish populations to high levels and support a vital and stable domestic fishing industry. Amendment 16 is designed to accomplish that objective and is consistent with the Magnuson Act.”

Read the text of Peter’s full argument here.