Deadly secrets of the laboratory
Michael Brooks
Published 05 February 2012
Excerpt:
The most persuasive counter-argument is that we don't need the bioterrorists to do anything; careless scientists can do the harm all by themselves. Unfortunately, scientists are as human as the rest of us. We occasionally spill tea on the kitchen table and - if working in a biotechnology lab - we also occasionally spill dangerous pathogens. In 2004, two graduate students working in a lab with the Sars virus infected themselves and seven others who didn't work in the lab. One person died as a result.
Working from the recorded frequency of accidental releases from laboratories and the number of labs likely to be researching the virus, two bio-safety experts have calculated that there is an 80 per cent chance that the virus will escape into the environment within four years. Writing in the science journal Nature, they point out that evolution only creates and distributes truly dangerous pathogens once every 30 years. We are creating a much greater risk.
Matter of trust
...
Further exposing scientists' naivety about gaining public support is the revelation that the Dutch researchers weren't even working in the highest-security facilities. Apparently the bio-safety level 3-plus - one notch below the maximum - has been considered adequate until now. Suggestions that the research move to level 4 facilities are likely to be heeded - though probably with a disgruntled sigh.
It's clear that scientists don't understand how much self-governance they get away with. Had the public been generally aware that H5N1 was being weaponised in anything other than the most secure facilities, there would surely have been an outcry. We have come to trust scientists to do the right thing but current discussions suggest this trust has been too easily won.
Full text:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Brooks, who holds a PhD in quantum physics, is an author, journalist and broadcaster. He is a consultant at New Scientist, a magazine with over three quarters of a million readers worldwide, has a weekly column for the New Statesman and is a Huffington Post UK blogger....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) 5th Edition
Section II ? Biological Risk Assessment
Excerpt:
Hazardous Characteristics of an Agent
<DIR><DIR>Table 1: Classification of Infectious Microorganisms by Risk Group
</DIR></DIR><TABLE dir=ltr border=1 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=7 width=430><TBODY><TR><TD height=27 vAlign=top width="33%">Risk Group
Classification
</TD><TD height=27 vAlign=top width="33%">NIH Guidelines for Research involving Recombinant DNA Molecules 2002
2
</TD><TD height=27 vAlign=top width="33%">World Health Organization Laboratory Biosafety Manual 3
rd Edition 20041
</TD></TR><TR><TD height=18 vAlign=top width="33%">Risk Group 1
</TD><TD height=18 vAlign=top width="33%">Agents not associated with disease in healthy adult humans.
</TD><TD height=18 vAlign=top width="33%">(No or low individual and community risk) A microorganism unlikely to cause human or animal disease.
</TD></TR><TR><TD height=54 vAlign=top width="33%">Risk Group 2
</TD><TD height=54 vAlign=top width="33%">Agents associated with human disease that is rarely serious and for which preventive or therapeutic interventions are often available.
</TD><TD height=54 vAlign=top width="33%">(Moderate individual risk; low community risk) A pathogen that can cause human or animal disease but is unlikely to be a serious hazard to laboratory workers, the community, livestock or the environment. Laboratory exposures may cause serious infection, but effective treatment and preventive measures are available and the risk of spread of infection is limited.
</TD></TR><TR><TD height=36 vAlign=top width="33%">Risk Group 3
</TD><TD height=36 vAlign=top width="33%">Agents associated with serious or lethal human disease for which preventive or therapeutic interventions may be available (high individual risk but low community risk).
</TD><TD height=36 vAlign=top width="33%">(High individual risk; low community risk) A pathogen that usually causes serious human or animal disease but does not ordinarily spread from one infected individual to another. Effective treatment and preventive measures are available.
</TD></TR><TR><TD height=42 vAlign=top width="33%">Risk Group 4
</TD><TD height=42 vAlign=top width="33%">Agents likely to cause serious or lethal human disease for which preventive or therapeutic interventions are not usually available (high individual risk and high community risk).
</TD><TD height=42 vAlign=top width="33%">(High individual and community risk)A pathogen that usually causes serious human or animal disease and can be readily transmitted from one individual to another, directly or indirectly. Effective treatment and preventive measures are not usually available.3
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
...
Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories
The predominant probable routes of transmission in the laboratory are:
1) direct skin, eye or mucosal membrane exposure to an agent; 2) parenteral inoculation by a syringe needle or other contaminated sharp, or by bites from infected animals and arthropod vectors; 3) ingestion of liquid suspension of an infectious agent, or by contaminated hand to mouth exposure; and 4) inhalation of infectious aerosols. An awareness of the routes of transmission for the natural human disease is helpful in identifying probable routes of transmission in the laboratory and the potential for any risk to the public health. For example, transmission of infectious agents can occur by direct contact with discharges from respiratory mucous membranes of infected persons, which would be a clear indication that a laboratory worker is at risk of infection from mucosal membrane exposure to droplets generated while handling that agent. The American Public Health Association publication Control of Communicable Diseases Manual is an excellent reference for identifying both natural and often noted laboratory modes of transmission.3 However, it is important to remember that the nature and severity of disease caused by a laboratory infection and the probable laboratory route of transmission of the infectious agent may differ from the route of transmission and severity associated with the naturally-acquired disease.4
An agent capable of transmitting disease through respiratory exposure to infectious aerosols is a serious laboratory hazard, both for the person handling the agent and for other laboratory occupants. This hazard requires special caution because infectious aerosols may not be a recognized route of transmission for the natural disease. Infective dose and agent stability are particularly important in establishing the risk of airborne transmission of disease. For example, the reports of multiple infections in laboratories associated with the use of Coxiella burnetii are explained by its low inhalation infective dose, which is estimated to be ten inhaled infectious particles, and its resistance to environmental stresses that enables the agent to survive outside of a living host or culture media long enough to become an aerosol hazard.5
...

Leave a comment: