This doesn’t mean that Patrick — who regularly touts the importance of biotechnology to the state’s economy — should be regarded as a biolab opponent. But he’s not an enthusiastic booster, either. And whatever position he eventually stakes out, his decision to enlist the NRC has already changed the course of the battle.
It’s also worth noting that, in the future, the imminent completion of the biolab building might provide an escape clause that allows politicians who’ve supported the project to change their minds. “Now it’s not a question the unions have to weigh in on, in terms of their losing opportunities for construction dollars,” notes Boston city councilor Chuck Turner, a long-standing biolab detractor. “Now the focus is more on the question of whether the BSL-4 aspect can go forward. That’s changed the dynamic.”
Congressman Capuano, whose district includes the biolab site, may be something of a bellwether here. Capuano is a strong union supporter. He’s also been a staunch biolab backer. Recently, he told the Phoenix that he believes the NIH is proceeding appropriately. “I understand that people have questions that haven’t been answered. Those questions are serious and important, and they need to be answered fairly and scientifically.”
But then he added this: “I’ve said from day one that I would change my mind if neutral scientific evidence indicated that the biolab couldn’t be operated safely. And if the answers don’t come back the way they’re supposed to, they’re going to have one heck of an empty building.”
A gray matter
In fact, whatever happens next, the biolab isn’t going to end up empty. Just 15 percent of the space (exact whereabouts unknown, for security reasons) is currently earmarked for BSL-4 work. If that portion of the project is ultimately nixed, lower-security research of some sort will still occur.
This is an outcome that Klare Allen — an organizer with the Roxbury group SafetyNet, and a plaintiff in both the state and federal suits — says she’d be happy to tolerate. For the past several years, Allen’s home office, in a creaky walk-up near Franklin Park, has been the epicenter of anti-biolab activity in the city. One wall is dominated with a huge handmade poster: next to a spider with the biohazard symbol on its back, there’s a slogan: NO BIO TERROR LAB. Another wall is covered with to-do lists: “Lobbying of city councilors,” “Call South End residents,” “Make stickers to wear.” Right now, says Allen, her network of committed anti-biolab activists numbers around 80; her political allies include Councilor Turner (who’s proposed banning BSL-4 labs in Boston) and State Representative Gloria Fox (who’s filed legislation that would regulate BSL-4 activity around the state).
When I visited Allen in her office a few weeks ago, I assumed that recent anti-biolab victories would have left her ebullient. I was wrong. Yes, Allen said, the NRC’s report had been a boon to her cause. (“It helped a great deal,” she says. “It brought us legitimacy.”) But she was also irked that biolab opponents — many of whom are, like her, African-American — hadn’t been taken seriously until outside entities, such as the courts and the NRC, started agreeing with them. “It’s a shame that every time a person of color brings something up, you have to have a white person beside you — someone with the authority to say, ‘There is cause for concern,’ ” she complained. “And then everybody’s, like, ‘Okay, then!’ ”
