City Council hears varied voices and views on Biolab

The Boston City Council's Committee on Government Operations heard from about 70 witnesses at a lengthy and lively hearing last week on Docket #0227, Councilor Charles Yancey's proposed ban of Level 4 research in the city. City Hall's Iannella Chamber was packed to the rafters, with spectators filling every available seat and space around the perimeter, even on the steps at the April 16 session. The hearing began at 4:00 PM and adjourned at approximately 10:45 PM after testimony from three panels and dozens of community members. Committee chairman Michael Flaherty led the hearing with District 4 councilor Charles Yancey, who authored and sponsored the ordinance. The ordinance and hearing are recent developments in a years-long battle between Boston University (BU) and community groups opposing level 3 and4 research at BU's National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory (NEIDL) on Albany Street. Level 3 research examines pathogens that can cause severe illness or death but for which treatments exist, while level 4 research involves pathogens for illnesses such as ebola that cause fatal illness and for which there is no vaccine or cure.

In his opening statement, Yancey said, "My concern is that the type of research taking place in this facility could pose a very serious risk to the public. Over the past 12 years and at least a half dozen hearings, I have yet to hear from the administration how we are going to protect our first responders." Yancey noted the tragically high number of losses among Boston's first responders in recent years and added, "I don't want to see our first responders running into harm's way because of catastrophic event in this level 4 lab." Yancey said that he recently asked the Boston police commissioner what he would order his officers to do in the event of a catastrophe at the lab, and that the commissioner said he would order them to stay out of the building. Yancey then questioned why the city would invite research that would pose such a risk, saying that it would be "reckless and irresponsible for the city to allow research on diseases with no known cure, "where just one human mistake can be catastrophic for the rest of society." He also noted that Cambridge has a ban against level 4 research, but still has a reputation as a center of science and research. Yancey suggested that since the facility has been built already, it should instead conduct non-level 4 research on diseases such as AIDS and sickle cell anemia that currently affect society. After Yancey's remarks, Flaherty read written comments from City Council president Bill Linehan expressing his support over the past seven years for level 4 research at the Biolab and his opposition to Yancey's proposed ban.

Boston University's panel consisted of Assistant Vice President for Government & Community Affairs Michelle Consalvo; Associate Provost for Research, Boston University Medical Campus and Associate Director of the NEIDL Dr. Ronald Corley; legal counsel Seth Jaffe, Esq. of Foley Hoag, LLP; Vice President and Associate Provost for Research Gloria Waters; and Executive Director of Public Safety and BU Police Chief Thomas G. Robbins. A trade association panel comprised members of MassBio, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts (AICUM), Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM), Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council (MassMEDIC), and the Massachusetts Hospital Association (MHA). The panel supporting Yancey's level 4 ban included Massachusetts Nurses Association's (MNA) Associate Director Mary Crotty, a nurse and attorney; MNA Division of Membership Director Joe-Ann Fergus; virologist Marc Pelletier; Senior Science Fellow at the Center for Arms Control & Non-Proliferation Lynn Klotz; and community organizer Klare X. Allen, who has led opposition to the Biolab for over 10 years. David Ozonoff, a physician, microbiologist and professor of Environmental Health at BU's School of Public Health, could not attend the hearing, but his written statement was read aloud.

Testifying first was the BU panel, with Corley denying that the NEIDL, also known as the Biolab, will be conducting defense-related bioweapons research, as the Biolab's opposition contends. Corley stated that the NEIDL will not do research on smallpox, will not do classified research, and will not resaearch biological weapons. "This is public health," he said. Robbins demonstrated the containers in which the level 4 pathogens would be transported, explaining that the containers have GPS devices for constant monitoring of their location and that they would be delivered via routes approved by the Boston police. Robbins described other planned safety protocols such as periodic drug and psychological screenings of NEIDL employees and video surveillance throughout the facility. In his remarks, attorney Jaffe posed the rhetorical question, "Can level 4 research be done safely? The answer is unequivocal yes." Jaffe described the Blue Ribbon Panel and the National Research Council (NRC) committee that reviewed the NEIDL's risk assessment as a who's who in research. Jaffe said that the NRC had criticized an earlier version of BU's risk assessment for the proposed research and concluded that the revised risk assessment fully addressed all questions raised about the earlier version. Responding to allegations that the risk assessment did not address the possibility of infection spread on mass transit by commuting NEIDL employees, Jaffe said, "That assertion is wrong." Members of the coalition fighting level 4 research challenged that claim, saying that the amended risk assessment still does not adequately address the risk of transmission of level 4 pathogens in public transit and does not measure and adequately address the risk and probability of human error or human threat either through negligence or malicious activity by terrorists, disgruntled employees or mentally or emotionally unstable researchers or staff.

Opponents testified that level 4 research would make the NEIDL a "soft target" for terrorists. Raising the contention that the Biolab will work on biological weapon development, King said, "The theory is that finding treatment for biological weapons is to develop more bioweapons. That is faulty logic." The 85 year old former mayoral candidate, Tent City founder and director of the South End Technology Center observed that the areas closest to the Biolab, the South End and lower Roxbury, have been economically distressed and are already environmental injustice areas, with higher rates of asthma and other illnesses. King continued, "The BU Biolab will not provide increased medical care access to the community. Instead it will bring to community new, potentially catastrophic public health dangers." Allen, who for years has been the indefatigable face and voice of the campaign to prevent level 4 research in Boston, expressed dismay at the scheduling of her panel to speak last, and chose to speak last, deferring to Mel King to open their testimony. In her impassioned remarks, Allen cited already-prevalent dangers such as gun violence and drugs and questioned why there hasn't been a referendum on level 4 research. "If people can vote on casinos and other things coming to their communities, why can't we vote on this?" Allen asked with frustration. Allen also questioned, in the event of a release of deadly, airborne pathogens, "How are you going to get to the school to get your child, how are you going to go get your wife, without breathing?"

Many of the approximately 70 witnesses who testified at the hearing were BU employees, students and researchers who cited a number of reasons for opposing the ordinance. NEIDL supporters claimed that the ordinance would have a "chilling effect" on biomedical and research business and projects coming to Boston. That was countered by proponents of the level 4 ban who pointed out that Cambridge passed a similar ban years ago, and it has not hampered the thriving biomedical research and business community there. Ozonoff asserted in his written testimony that early on, he read the National Institutes of Health's (NIH) Request for Application for the NEIDL describing the lab's purpose. He wrote, "Reading this background material made clear to me that the intent and rationale for this laboratory was not public health. It was clearly part of what has come to be called "the biodefense enterprise" of the US Government. I am of the opinion that this enterprise is harmful to public health and makes us less safe, not more safe." Longtime South Ender David Sprogis testified, "I am a civil engineer and my focus has been on buildings. One of the things that has happened is that even though this building is supposedly designed to have safety features, don't believe it. So did the plane that disappeared. I've been kicking the tires of projects like that all my life. Over the years the quality is getting worse. Have it in a remote place, not in the heart of the city."

A long succession of BU lab workers, students and others associated with the university spoke of the lab's safety features and strict safety protocols, the educational and community economic advantages it brings, and its importance in representing Boston as a world leader in biomedical study and innovation. One research fellow from Germany called the NEIDL "the Mercedes of research facilities" and took personal offense at level 4 opponents' contentions that lab staff might cause a dangerous release through carelessness or intentional mishandling.

After about two hours of testimony from members of the public, Flaherty offered those who had not signed up to testify before closing the hearing. A Massachusetts Avenue resident took the microphone to state that he supports the ordinance to ban level 4 research because it is too risky. After that brief statement, Flaherty adjourned the hearing and announced that a vote on the ordinance would be scheduled in approximately two weeks.