|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
This weeks Biological Weapons stories for Tuesday, June 25, 2002.
U.S. Response: Plum Island Facility Considering Controversial UpgradeBy David Ruppe The decision could pit the department’s desire for constructing such a facility, which it currently lacks, against safety concerns of local residents on or near some of the nation’s most expensive real estate. The decision could be ultimately bumped up to the White House. Previous attempts to fund an upgrade by Congress and the Clinton administration were resisted by New York legislators responding to local pressure and there are signs the Bush administration would face similar pressures. The Plum Island Animal Disease Center currently has a Biosafety Level 3 standard, enabling the laboratory to research and diagnose some of the most dangerous animal diseases in the world, such as foot-and-mouth disease, Rinderpest, and African swine fever. A Biosafety Level 4 facility would enable the department to work with diseases posing the highest risk to humans such as anthrax, screwworm, or bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as “mad cow disease.” Jesse Garcia, chief of staff for Republican Representative Felix Grucci, who has Plum Island in his district, said the White House has assured his boss the center “will not be upgraded to a Biosafety 4 facility. That has been advised to us. Its mission will stay the same.” “The White House has been very receptive throughout the past 18 months about his concerns for that facility,” he said, noting that the Bush administration called for no changes to Plum Island in its recent proposal for creating a homeland security department. The administration has made assurances “that no matter what appropriations level or what department Plum Island facilities will finally end up in, Agriculture or homeland defense, it will stay as a Biosafety 3 facility,” he said. David Huxsoll, interim director of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, however, said in a phone interview Friday the upgrade remains a consideration. “As you probably know, that’s something that has been discussed. At this point in time, no decision has been made. That’s about all I can say at this point in time,” Huxsoll said. “We don’t have authority at that point in time to pursue that.” Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman alluded to the possibility during April Senate testimony, saying the department was prepared to spend $23 million for Plum Island “pending the outcome of a broad independent review of the needs and options for this work, including the needs for Biosecurity Level 4 facilities.” The department has contracted with Science Applications International Corp. for a report, which will address whether the department needs such a facility, for which a panel of experts from around the country met last week for two days. The consensus was that one is needed, according to a participant. The panel did not address whether Plum Island is the most suitable location, the person said. The department has otherwise refused to comment on the matter, including on whether it is considering upgrading the facility, or has ruled that out. “These all are questions that are in reference to security matters and we can’t give you any comment at this time,” an Agriculture representative on homeland security matters said. Previous Resistance During the Clinton administration, the department had sought to obtain $24 million in funding specifically to begin upgrading the facility from Biosafety Level 3 to Level 4, the highest security classification. The Plum Island facility is two miles offshore and the only U.S. facility designated to study certain highly infectious foreign animal diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease. The Clinton administration abandoned the idea in 2000, however, responding to protests from New York legislators. Local residents had expressed concern about possible terrorist attacks and road accidents while hazardous materials are transported to the laboratory on the main highway along the north side of the island. After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, New York Democratic Senators Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton reportedly beat back another attempt to approve money for a biosafety upgrade, contained in legislation proposed by Senator Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-N.C.), by successfully encouraging Roberts to remove the language. In addition, Schumer and Clinton last November called for a full and immediate security review of the island. “When you have a facility just off the coast of Long Island that handles lethal and rare animal diseases, you just can’t take chances,” Schumer said. This month, President George W. Bush signed a major bioterrorism defense bill past by Congress in May that provides $100 million, reportedly added by Clinton, specifically for “renovation, updating, and expansion of the Biosafety Level 3” Plum Island facility (see GSN, June 12). Senator Clinton applauded the measure, saying it would “keep Plum Island, off the coast of New York, at its current biosecurity level and to modernize and improve the security of the facilities.” The $23 million referred to by Veneman was approved this year as part of the Defense Department Appropriations Act for 2002 for “planning and design” at Plum Island. A Quieter Approach Since Sept. 11, the department has been undergoing a nationwide lab security review intended to produce recommendations on improving security at the country’s five Biosafety Level 3 laboratories. At Plum Island’s current Level 3 facility, lab workers can be exposed to animals being studied, but must strip down and shower before returning to street clothes. Air leaving the lab is filtered and all materials and sewage leaving the lab are decontaminated to remove any viruses. For a Level 4 facility, employees entering special areas must wear one-piece, pressurized suits ventilated with life-support systems to avoid exposure to potentially fatal diseases. In addition, specially engineered, sealed facilities and elaborate safety equipment are required to prevent dangerous germs from escaping the facility. There are now only four Level 4 labs in the country, located at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md., a small facility at Georgia State University in Atlanta and the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick, Md. In a series of meetings with local communities 1999, Agriculture officials encountered some anger and skepticism as they sought to assure residents about the security precautions associated with the upgrade. The Clinton administration’s approach to considering an upgrade “just didn’t happen right, didn’t move down the pike the way it was supposed to have,” a department source said.
Anthrax: “Modern” Spores Used in Attacks, Officials SaySenior U.S. officials have said the anthrax used in last fall’s attacks was fresh and made within the last two years, the New York Times reported yesterday (see GSN, June 13). The FBI was able to determine the age of the spores through the use of a type of radiocarbon dating, officials said. Federal investigators believe the recent production date of the anthrax used in the attacks means that the person responsible prepared the spores alone and could produce more for further attacks, according to the Times. “It’s modern,” an official said. “It was grown, and therefore it can be grown again and again.” The dating has added evidence to a theory in the “Amerithrax” investigation that the person responsible for the attacks has a direct connection to a microbiology laboratory and might have used relatively new equipment to prepare the spores, the Times reported. “We’re still looking for someone who fits the criteria of training, knowledge, education, experience and skill,” an official said. Investigators have said they think the person responsible, if caught, would fit into the profile created by the FBI (see GSN, June 4). Bureau scientists have said the person responsible for the attacks is a solitary male with scientific knowledge who has a grudge against society, according to the Times. According to the profile, the person responsible also probably feels comfortable in the Trenton, N.J. area, where the letters sent with the spores were postmarked, the Times reported. Investigators still do not know whether the person is from the United States or abroad. Officials have said, however, that there is still no distinct suspect in the investigation. Investigators have created a list of about 50 potential suspects that changes periodically as new suspects are either added or removed, according to the Times. Investigators have also examined the biopesticide industry, which has created a list of about 80 people that are still under investigation, the Times reported. An investigation into the biopharmaceutical industry has created a list of about 200 possible subjects, while research facilities with anthrax stocks account for another list of about 50 people under question. “It’s astounding that they haven’t been able to narrow the field,” said Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists. “There aren’t that many people that could have been involved” (Johnston/Broad, New York Times, June 23). Members of Congress Weigh In Some members of Congress have become frustrated at the lack of progress in the investigation (see GSN, June 5). “The anthrax killer is out there,” Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said yesterday. “We need to nab this person.” Officials need to spend more effort on finding the person responsible for the anthrax attacks and on capturing al-Qaeda operatives rather than on reorganizing themselves, Boxer said (see GSN, June 21). “These are things we must do,” she said. “I have to say we just need a renewed effort to keep our eye on both of these things.” Other members of Congress have expressed more support for the investigation, saying that because it involves factors such as complex science, fast results should not be expected. “Eventually we will know these things,” said House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas). “But we must be diligent, thorough, persistent and patient” (Associated Press/New York Times, June 23). For further information, see: CDC Frequently Asked Questions on Anthrax Journal of the American Medical Association Background GSN Anthrax Attack Chronology (Dec. 12, 2001)
About Newswire | Contact National Journal | Re-Use Guidelines
HOME | CONTACT US | GET INVOLVED | SITE MAP |
|
|||||||||||||||
Back to top