Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
OVERVIEW
During July 10-13, 2011, 68 participants from 32 countries gathered in Istanbul, Turkey
for a workshop organized by the United States National Research Council on Anticipating
Biosecurity Challenges of the Global Expansion of High-containment Biological Laboratories.
The United States Department of State’s Biosecurity Engagement Program sponsored the
workshop, which was held in partnership with the Turkish Academy of Sciences. The attendees
included laboratory directors, scientists, engineers, and members of governmental and non-
governmental organizations. The participants were active in the fields of biosafety, biosecurity,
scientific research, disease surveillance, and public health. Some came from countries with a
long history of operating multiple laboratories while others were from countries that had only
recently opened their first biological containment (biocontainment) lab. Many were affiliated with
groups contemplating the construction of new laboratories or interested in improving their
existing facilities.
The international workshop examined biosafety and biosecurity issues related to the
design, construction, maintenance, and operation of high-containment biological laboratories—
equivalent to United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention biological safety level 3
or 4 labs. Although these laboratories are needed to characterize highly dangerous human and
animal pathogens, assist in disease surveillance, and produce vaccines, they are complex
systems with inherent risks.
During the course of the meeting, participants discussed many aspects of the topic
including:
• Technological options to meet diagnostic, research, and other goals;
• Laboratory construction and commissioning;
• Operational maintenance to provide sustainable capabilities, safety, and security; and
• Measures for encouraging a culture of responsible conduct.
To develop a sense of the current norms in the world, workshop attendees described the history
and current challenges they face in their individual laboratories. Speakers recounted steps they
were taking to improve safety and security, from running training programs to implementing a
variety of personnel reliability measures. Many also spoke about physical security, access
controls, and monitoring pathogen inventories. Workshop participants also identified tensions in
the field and suggested possible areas for action.
DETERMINING AND ADOPTING APPROPIRATE SAFEGUARDS
Participants described many examples where, in their opinion, biosafety and biosecurity
precautions were not proportional to the risks. In some labs, poorly trained workers perform
aerosol-generating procedures without the benefit of personal protective equipment and
functional, certified biosafety cabinets. In contrast, other labs invest in cutting-edge air-handling
engineering and adhere to all recommendations of a standard biosafety level, regardless of the
particulars of their mission or setting (e.g., disease endemicity, local population immunity, and
local risk tolerance). One participant argued that given the high costs of an accidental or
deliberate pathogen release, not using all possible safeguards could be considered
irresponsible and was likely to upset communities in which laboratories reside. Others argued
that regulations have not kept pace with evolving practices and engineering options and that the
ensemble of options used today is both unnecessarily expensive and does not provide the
1
OCR for page 2
2 Biosecurity Challenges
maximum risk reduction. Accordingly, some workshop attendees urged that more applied
biosafety research be funded. Yet others suggested that in view of limited resources and
competing funding priorities, labs and the communities in which they reside should define an
acceptable level of risk and select their precautions accordingly using a qualitative and/or
quantitative risk analysis.
SAMPLE AND STRAIN TRANSPORT
Participants also discussed the need to balance the risks and intellectual property
concerns of transporting strains and diagnostic samples with the costs of maintaining additional
biocontainment labs and pathogen collections. Numerous participants expressed frustration
with what they perceived as unnecessarily restrictive transport, import, and export regulations.
Individuals also complained about burdensome paperwork, precautions perceived as out of
proportion to the risk, long delays to obtain permission, and multiple levels of officials who could
block a transfer. To ameliorate some of these problems, several participants suggested
continuing to engage the International Air Transport Association, the United Nations Committee
on Dangerous Goods Transport, and national governments in dialogs to better define the
requirements for safe transport and to accurately characterize the associated risks.
NATIONAL REGULATIONS
Many workshop attendees expressed the need for regulatory frameworks that support
safe and secure research without adding undue burdens. Currently, some laboratories work
under a limited or poorly enforced national regulatory framework, while others must comply with
multiple sets of regulations to satisfy donor and national requirements. Similarly, a lack of
national and international guidance and accreditation standards frustrates some laboratories
seeking formal accreditation or certification. While most felt that implementing national
regulatory frameworks and certification procedures was largely a responsibility of individual
countries, many suggested that international assistance could facilitate the process. Others
urged donors to simplify their regulatory requirements.
LABORATORY PLANNING
Numerous discussions emphasized the importance of the planning (needs assessment)
phase that precedes facility construction and upgrades. Many workshop attendees stressed
the benefits of involving everyone (e.g., the community, architects, the lab director, scientists,
regulators, designers, contractors, and certifiers) from the very beginning and keeping them
involved throughout the process. Some participants suggested that the planning phase might
consider provisions for surge capacity (temporary increases in capacity of a needed
containment level) in response to disease outbreaks; ways a new laboratory might expand and
complement existing national and regional capabilities; and how emerging technologies, such
as molecular diagnostics, affect containment requirements. Preparations for long-term
sustainability including planning for maintenance and operational funds, obtaining equipment
and reagents, and recruiting or training people with the needed expertise (e.g., engineers,
technicians, biosafety professionals, craftspeople, and lab workers) can also start during the
planning phase.
Many participants identified the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention review
conference in December of 2011 and the subsequent annual "experts meetings," the
International Health Regulations update in 2014, and the next revision of the World Health
Organization’s Laboratory Biosafety Manual as places the biosafety, biosecurity, and public
health communities might try to make changes. Biosafety associations could assist by providing
OCR for page 3
3
Overview
neutral, national and regional platforms for discussions among stakeholders from multiple
agencies and encouraging the adoption of a biosafety culture. Additionally, individual
“champions” could take up the cause and spread the message in their countries and regions.
OCR for page 4
