Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures  |  Adult
Boston  |  Portland  |  Providence
Flashbacks  |  Letters  |  Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  The Editorial Page  |  This Just In

Biolab follies

How did BU's research facility go from slam dunk to almost sunk?
By ADAM REILLY  |  April 7, 2008


Infectious nexus? Can rigorous protocols keep the BU biolab safe? By Adam Reilly
In the beginning — way back in the fall of 2003, when the “War on Terror” was still young — the notion that anything could derail the Boston University (BU) biolab seemed absurd. The federal government supported the research facility, obviously, since the National Institutes of Health (NIH) picked Boston University Medical Center (along with the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston) over five other sites that wanted to build their own National Biocontainment Laboratories. The project also had widespread political support, both from the Democratic establishment (Boston mayor Tom Menino, Congressman Mike Capuano, Senator Ted Kennedy) and from then–Republican governor Mitt Romney.

Money was one big draw. According to early estimates, the biolab, officially dubbed the National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories, would inject $1.7 billion into Boston’s economy over 20 years and create roughly 2000 new jobs (two-thirds in construction, one-third permanent). But so, too, was the prospect of cementing Massachusetts’s status as a biotech Mecca — and a broader sense that landing the biolab would boost the state’s prestige. After all, only a select few facilities in the country do Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) research, which involves hands-on study of virulent, deadly diseases such as Ebola and Marburg hemorrhagic fever. And while the majority of the biolab’s space would be used for non-BSL-4 work, that was clearly the sexiest, most significant part of the project. As Kennedy said when the biolab’s founding, $128-million federal grant was announced: “Boston now is situated to be the world’s center in a battle against biological warfare.”

True, there was some opposition: neighborhood activists, a few lower-level politicians, the occasional fretful academic. The biolab was dangerous and didn’t belong in a dense urban area, they argued. And if it were proposed in a whiter, more affluent neighborhood — Wellesley, West Roxbury, the Back Bay — it wouldn’t stand a chance. But their prospects looked exceedingly dim, largely because plenty of scientists promised, from the get-go, that the biolab would be totally safe.

Those days are gone. Throughout the past few years, and particularly during the past 12 months, the biolab’s backers have suffered a string of setbacks: legal, diplomatic, political. Boston University Medical Center (BUMC) may still end up hosting a BSL-4 facility, but this is hardly the sure thing it once was. In fact, given the current momentum of the debate, the smart money might actually be on the biolab not coming to fruition, at least as it was originally conceived.

So what went wrong, exactly? Or, for those who see things differently: what went right?

Scathing reviews
Albany Street isn’t much of a draw, either for tourists or for locals. Unless you’re headed to BUMC, or picking up some flowers at the Boston Flower Exchange, there’s not much reason to visit. There’s minimal evidence there of the gentrification taking place just to the north, in the boutique-ified part of the South End. But if, for whatever reason, you did happen to walk past the biolab construction site, you’d conclude that everything is going swimmingly. The building itself — a seven-story, 192,000-square-foot, cream-colored behemoth crowned with a striking wall of curved glass — is nearly done. Viewed from the south or west, it’s already a striking, reassuringly solid-looking sentinel at Boston proper’s southernmost edge.

The irony is this: as the biolab has moved toward physical completion, the prospects of it actually conducting BSL-4 research — or even BSL-3 work, which involves fairly spooky subjects such as anthrax and the pneumonic plague — have grown increasingly shaky. The biggest setback yet came this past November, when the National Research Council (NRC), a part of the nonprofit, nonpartisan, congressionally established National Academies, issued a scathing assessment of a draft safety review that the NIH, the biolab’s primary funder, had prepared in support of the project.

That draft, which was completed in July 2007, looked to be a boon for biolab backers. It concluded, essentially, that putting the biolab on the South End-Roxbury border would be just as safe — maybe even safer! — as putting it in two alternate, non-urban locations (Tyngsborough, Massachusetts, and Peterborough, New Hampshire).

The NRC’s retort, which came as the NIH study was being circulated for public comment, was remarkably harsh. The NIH’s scientific analyses, the NRC concluded, were “not sound and credible.” The worst-case scenarios the NIH was supposed to explore were “not adequately identified and thoroughly developed.” And its comparison of risks at the South End site with elsewhere did “not include the appropriate level of information.” Yes, the NRC said, the country needs BSL-4 laboratories; and yes, some of them already exist in major urban areas (including Atlanta and Bethesda, Maryland). Still: “The selection of sites for high-containment laboratories, whether in urban or rural areas, [needs to] be supported by detailed analyses summarizing the available scientific information.” This was a very polite way of saying that the NIH’s study was almost worthless.

1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |   next >
  • Learning not to kill
    New techniques mean that medical students can learn without killing animals. So why won't BU get with the program?
  • Global warming
    Some reasons for hope. Plus, Susan Passoni for boston City Council
  • Who’s with whom
    When John Kerry bowed out of the presidential sweepstakes, it freed Boston’s big Democratic brokers to find a favorite.
  • More more >
  Topics: News Features , Boston University , National Institutes of Health , Michael Capuano ,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print
Biolab follies
I don't mind a properly contructedf BL4 lab, I with the one in my back yard (Galveston) was properly constructed! The problem is that the "security personnel" guarding the facility don't have the moxy to draw their useless service weapons (if they are even armed) and shoot an intruder. These facilites have no defense in depth, no perimeter security and are susceptable to release of contents with an OK city style bomb! Look at the picture of BUs building and put the image of the post-blast Murrow building on top of it. Not a pretty picture!
By Forensics on 04/03/2008 at 2:45:56
Biolab follies
I've been opposing the lab for years for some of the reasons outlined in the NRC study. The fact while it would be very nice to cure Ebola for the people of Zaire, this is highly high priority research for the middle of Boston. Given the economy is going down the toilet, there is no national health insurance. Our infrastructure is crumbling, one would expect that the cost benefit should be elsewhere. Even if it is the case that this facility proves safe the BSL4 infectious disease facility is a waste of money as there is not the competence to prevent the use of bioweapons. Moreover a poor country does not have the money to develop an effective weapon and delivery system, a dirty bomb is much cheaper more controlled and easier to develop. This effort is more insanity brought forth by the Bush Administration and nobody is likely to Waste this money on the city of Boston. The other side of the coin is the two senators from your state have worked hard to prevent a windmill farm 5 50 ten miles off the cost of Nantucket Harbor because the hachtsmen might have to see windmills miles out to sea. As George Orwell mentioned, all pigs are created equal but evidently the citizens of Nantucket are more equal than others.
By mike1947 on 04/03/2008 at 9:42:40
Biolab follies
Yes, they met with the community many times. But at each of those meetings the answer to nearly every question was either "yes, it's safe, trust me" or "I can't answer that." Just because you repeat it "hundreds" of times, doesn't mean you actually /say/ anything.
By Just a Guy on 04/05/2008 at 11:59:59

Share this entry with Delicious
  •   IN HARM'S WAY  |  August 06, 2008
    The tragedy of Rakan Hassan and the impossibility of a Hippocratic Oath for journalists
  •   THE NIGHT JAMES BROWN SAVED BOSTON  |  August 05, 2008
    Documentary that situates the concert in a larger context
  •   LEGGO MY EGO!  |  July 30, 2008
    The GOP is smearing Obama as a narcissist. So why is the press playing along?
  •   HEAD CASE  |  July 23, 2008
    Media coverage of a State House sex scandal reveals the pitfalls of reporting on mental illness
  •   UNKINDEST CUT?  |  July 10, 2008
    How a proposed pay cut surprised the Globe newsroom — and why it might actually happen

 See all articles by: ADAM REILLY

RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 

Featured Articles in News Features:
Friday, August 08, 2008  |  Sign In  |  Register
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
StuffAtNight Latest:
Copyright © 2008 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group