|
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Mainland animal lab poses risks: GAO
Posted by Alla Katsnelson [Entry posted at 22nd May 2008 06:14 PM GMT]
Rate this article
Return to Top comment: Utah Army Lab by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2008-05-27 16:16:04] What about the possibility of using the Army Research Lab in the Western Desert of Utah? It is pretty isolated, and they already work with extremely dangerous viruses and bacteria; probably nothing quite as contagious as FMD. I think there are animals within a possible range of transmission, so maybe the very remote island possibility would be more reasonable Return to Top comment: FMD carried in employee's tissue by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2008-05-22 18:45:12] Congressman Chip Pickering (R-Miss)logic follows the federal grant dollars, not science or the risk assessment. The FMD issue is really a no brainer as everyone has commented. The researcher/lab tech carries the virus within their tissue and bodily fiulds for up to ten days after exposure to the pathogen. Also they can not own or have contact with any animals and are restricted from events or facilities including zoos, carnivals, etc. Isolation is the only logical means of dealing with FMD research. Return to Top comment: point missed by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2008-05-22 17:03:28] You may have missed his point; that winds can spread FMD so an island location gives a false sense of security, not that it is "safer" on the mainland. Return to Top comment: 40 to 300 miles, wind borne by Ellen Hunt [Comment posted 2008-05-22 16:12:29] Literature shows FMD spreading from 40 to 300 miles by wind. (Although, I suspect the latter is more likely on the feet of birds.) That would suggest an even more remote island being a better location, although it can be hard to find researchers wanting to be that isolated.
What is the risk of doing no research on FMD becaue of bureaucratic deadlock? That needs to be answered also. Return to Top comment: out of sight out of mind by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2008-05-22 15:18:35] This has been a planning disaster from the very beginning. All of the valid issues that have surfaced focus on environmental safety. There should be reconsideration of all proposed sites with one major addition. That addition should be Johnson Island in the Pacific. The US already owns it and it contains a significant amount of federal land. It is the safest place environmentally that such studies of foreign animal and zoonotic diseases could be studied. Although some might parallel that proposal with the use of the Black Sea island by the old Soviet Union for Coxiella burnetti research, Johnson Island would appear to be a more viable option. Return to Top comment: Duh by Joshua Sloan [Comment posted 2008-05-22 14:55:29] Yep, keeping on an island is a definite no brainer. Return to Top comment: No brainer by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2008-05-22 14:24:59] Chip Pickering argues that the wind could easily carry the virus from Plum Island to the mainland. Therefore he thinks that putting the facility on the mainland would be safer? I fail to see the logic there.
It's not a case of "if" an accidental release occurs, but "when". At Pirbright in the UK there have been two accidents within the last year or so, and at least one of those resulted in an FMD outbreak on a nearby farm. Keeping the facility off the mainland is a no-brainer. Comment on this blog |