Tag Archive: NoBio.org


Every once in a while a dialogue comes through (via comments) on a post that is worthy of further debate. Below is just the kind of dialogue I’m refering to. I hope you will agree.

 

Plum Island Animal Disease Center (Unedited) Satellite Image

 

Save_PIADC writes:

Thanks for your coverage.

The internal DHS Study Committee (SSRA) was about as close to an “inside job” as you could assemble and virtually all of the panelists had glaring conflicts of interest and personal stakes in seeing this project move forward.

Both of the USDA “independent experts” on the SSRA, Drs. Cyril Gay and Randall Leavings, were also members of the initial NBAF site visit team. Their efforts as site visit team members, largely informed the decision of siting NBAF in Kansas. They may have also met with Senator Pat Roberts during their 2007 site visits in Kansas.

SSRA members Steve Bennett, Dr. Michelle Colby, Dr. Bruce Harper and Dr. Joanne Jones-Meehan are all DHS employees. The notion that they would cast a skeptical eye towards a pet project of the DHS Secretary is laughable.

SSRA member Dr. David Brake is a contractor for DHS at Plum Island and his firm would have a vested financial stake in an expanded DHS countermeasure enterprise at NBAF.

SSRA member Dr. Josh Fine (SAIC) is also a contractor for DHS at Plum Island. His firm, SAIC, could potentially stand to gain a windfall if selected to provide SETA contract support at NBAF.

SSRA member Dr. Ted Schroeder is a professor at Kansas State. No conflict of interest there;) SSRA member Dr. Charles Hobbs is a “senior scientist emeritus” at the Lovelace Respiratory Reserach Institute. Lovelace’s President and CEO, Dr. Robert Rubin, was appointed in 2007 by then-Governor Kathleen Sebelius to serve on the “NBAF in Kansas Task Force.” Of course, there is no chance that Dr. Hobbs would come out against a major policy goal of his instiution’s President and CEO.

Other than the two HHS members, the SSRA panelists were riddled with ethical, professional, personal and financial conflicts of interest.

Continue reading

Advertisements

A report released today by the National Research Council, solidified concerns brought forth by two grassroot, non-profits who opposed and fought the placement of the National Bio and Agro Defense Facility (NBAF) from being sited in North Carolina and Georgia. Both groups, the Granville Non Violent Action Team (GNAT) and AthensFAQ brought forth the same credible arguments presented in the NRC’s report. The report titled: “Evaluation of a Site-Specific Risk Assessment for the Department of Homeland Security’s Planned National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, Kansas” (that’s a mouth-full) was completed by DHS in June 2010.

The NRC report finally sheds some much-needed light on DHS’s flawed methodology and skewed data the agency used to justify the NBAF’s risk to near-by communities and livestock populations.

Upon review of the DHS assessment, the National Research Council found “several major shortcomings.” Based on the DHS risk assessment, there is nearly a 70 percent chance over the 50-year lifetime of the facility that a release of FMD could result in an infection outside the laboratory, impacting the economy by estimates of $9 billion to $50 billion. The present Research Council report says the risks and costs of a pathogen being accidently released from the facility could be significantly higher. The committee found that the SSRA has many legitimate conclusions, but it was concerned that the assessment does not fully account for how a Biosafety-Level 3 Agriculture and Biosafety-Level 4 Pathogen facility would operate or how pathogens might be accidently released. In particular, the SSRA does not include important operation risks and mitigation issues, such as the risk associated with the daily cleaning of large animal rooms. It also fails to address risks that would likely increase the chances of an FMD leak or of the disease’s spread after a leak, including the NBAF’s close proximity to the Kansas State University College of Veterinary Medicine clinics and KSU football stadium or personnel moving among KSU facilities.

Matt DeGennaro of AthensFAQ sums the report up quite nicely, “WE TOLD YOU SO” (and all we had was Google). Critical thinking  suggest this report should lay to rest once and for all, the federally funded bio-hazard, right? No, not if the Kansas Congressional Delegation has its way.

“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has chosen Manhattan as the site for the new NBAF. The construction of this cutting edge facility must move forward to safely conduct critical research to protect our nation’s agriculture sector and food supply. The National Research Council’s study is helpful to DHS as it continues in its design phase of the NBAF facility. We are also pleased that it confirms the importance of building a new NBAF to protect our nation. However, we are concerned that some of the findings do not seem to account for mitigation and safety plans that DHS has already said will be put in place. These efforts should not be discounted. We are confident this facility will be the safest research laboratory in the world and its mission is critical in order to protect our nation’s food supply.”

Absent critical thinking, politicos from the Kansas Congressional Delegation obviously can’t read !  U.S. Senator Pat Roberts knows first hand what an outbreak of FMD would do to his state. Sen. Roberts you see was the President of the U.S. during a government exercise known as Crimson Sky. Here is what he said about the mock FMD outbreak during a Senate Hearing ( To Review BioSecurity Preparedness and Efforts to Address AgroTerrorism Threats).

Senator ROBERTS.
Back in 2002, I joined an exercise held by the department called Crimson Sky. That was sort of a misnomer because it followed the experience of Great Britain in regards to their problems with their livestock herds. They used that method in regards in incinerating the animals, which is probably the worst thing you could have done, as we found out.
There wasn’t anybody else in town, so I played the role of President in this exercise, and it simulated the intentional introduction of foot and mouth disease in five different locations. By the way,the person who did that was from Iraq, at least in the exercise. The impact was incredible. In 6 days, if you do not detect the disease, that is when this or the effects of the disease first become obvious, and then it is too late. All of our exports stop. People in the cities discovered that their food doesn’t come from grocery stores, and panic set in. The markets went crazy.

Basically, we had States calling out the National Guard. That is when we had the National Guard in the States, not over in Iraq and in Afghanistan and everywhere else, setting up all sorts of border situations so livestock in Texas couldn’t go to Oklahoma; Oklahoma couldn’t go to Kansas; Kansas couldn’t go to Nebraska; etc.,etc. It got pretty rough except everybody finally realized that all of the States were involved and we had to do something.

As President, I stopped the movement of all livestock. The Secretary of Commerce said you couldn’t do that. So I fired him, and it felt very good. But it was absolute chaos and not only for 1 year and not only for livestock, but every crop. So if you talk about a real problem, that was a real problem.
So, Chuck, can you tell me are you still conducting these kind of exercises? You probably don’t want to have me play President, but at any rate, are we doing the exercises that we need to do in conjunction with your compatriots up there on the panel, and has that impacted the way you do business?

Senator ROBERTS. We had to terminate almost every herd in America. I mean that was the end result. It was an incredible experience when you really finally got down to the final answer to stop what was going on. We had to call out the National Guard and call out the military. Quite frankly, we ran out of ammunition. It was a mess, and then you had PETA on television, and I can’t describe the utter chaos that happened.

See folks this is the bottom line; Federal grant dollars have a way of creating amnesia. Here we have a person who knows first hand the economic damage caused by a mock- outbreak of FMD  in the state of Kansas but continues to push for the NBAF.  I don’t live in Kansas but if I did I’d be concerned, very concerned. Maybe real-life is too much for some people to believe, but when you involve their wallets everything changes, doesn’t it Sen. Roberts?

A Threat to our Nation’s Security

By Judy Winters

The code of conduct and research that will be performed at the proposed National Bio Agro Defense Facility has been the subject of intense opposition within several communities affected by the eventual placement of proposed lab. The consortia vying for the NBAF have dismissed the concerns of the communities, stating that accidents and security breaches are simply not something we should concern ourselves with. However, concerns regarding the production of a more virulent pathogen or potential bioweapons are valid. This degree of hubris sank the Titanic; it certainly should not be applied to life sciences and the eventual operation of a BSL 4 bio-defense facility. Concerns relating to Bio weapons proliferation have evolved from a genre of research referred to as “Dual Use” biotechnology. The “Dual use Dilemma ” has been the subject of a highly contentious, political and social debate for years.

The research activities that will take place at the NBAF are precisely the type of research that generates the most concern. It is difficult to distinguish bio-defense research from bio-weapons research. In order to make vaccines against deadly biological agents, the deadly biological agents have to be created. The US programs, particularly, the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security (DHS), are increasingly focused on “threat assessment” activities and studies where researchers deliberately create the “threat”, thus creation of the weapon, claiming they are learning to defend against it.

Dual use research is difficult to articulate and has different meaning depending on how the research is being applied. Some describe “dual use” research as that of a double- edged sword of rDNA research advancement. The research can be used for legitimate agricultural and public health advancements, but if misused, the same research technology could have disastrous consequences. Biotechnology in the hands of a rogue government, a terrorist or a simple act of greed and someone’s willingness to sell a product or an associated technology on the black-market would have the unprecedented potential for destructive and deadly widespread applications as a bio-weapon.

Should individuals living in the proximity of a BSL 4 agricultural facilities be concerned? Consider for a moment the average US citizen may never know a biological threat exist until it is too late. The Bioterrorism Act of 2002 prohibits the public disclosure of any theft or loss of a potential bioterrorism agent, as well as any information related to site-specific security measures designed to prevent unauthorized access to biological agents. Although reporting of releases and thefts of bioterrorism agents from facilities and laboratories are mandatory, the Secretary of Health and Human Services may only provide public notification if the incident represents a serious public health emergency. This would include the communities surrounding the NBAF.

 With the increase in the US bio-defense spending since 9/11, many have warned of the potential for disastrous consequences of misused biotechnology research.

 The former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan gave a stark warning before his retirement in 2006, a warning that the world would be foolish to ignore. Annan warned that as biological research expands and advanced biotechnologies become more available the associated safety and security risks will increase exponentially. “When used negligently, or misused deliberately, biotechnology could inflict the most profound human suffering—ranging from the accidental release of disease agents into the environment to intentional disease outbreaks caused by state or non-state actors,” Annan warned, “Soon, tens of thousands of laboratories worldwide will be operating, in a multi-billion dollar industry. Even novices working in small laboratories will be able to carry out gene manipulation.

One of the most difficult and pressing issues at hand for all involved in “life sciences”, and dual use research programs such as pharmaceutical companies, academia and government laboratories is whether the risks associated with the misuse of the technology can be minimized while still enabling critical research to continue. This is a risky juxtaposition for the scientific community entering into the bio-defense research considering they want the freedom to do the research suitable for publication and self-regulate and yet the DHS will desire to keep the research classified.

Texas A&M’s bio-defense program is a good example of how issues that just are over looked could potentially have disastrous consequences if the viruses they were working with were more lethal. The university failed to report to federal authorities’ one lab worker’s infection with Brucella and several others’ exposure to Q fever. The failure to report the employees contamination was brought to the attention of Federal authorities by a bioweapons proliferation watchdog group know as the Sunshine Project . Otherwise, this incident would have never been reported.

  The “designer bugs” produced in these types of BSL 4 facilities are more virulent than their naïve counterparts. Moreover, according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIH) , 18 of the BSL 4 select agents are capable of rapid widespread human de-population, with no known cure or vaccine. Citizens should question an agency with so many documented failures to regulate itself, while safely operating a BSL 4 Bio containment facility.

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: