Strengthening the Disaster Resilience of the
Academic Biomedical Research Community
Protecting the Nation’s Investment
Committee on Strengthening the Disaster Resilience of
Academic Research Communities
Georges C. Benjamin, Lisa Brown, and Ellen Carlin, Editors
Board on Health Sciences Policy
Board on Earth Sciences and Resources
Institute for Laboratory Animal Research
Health and Medicine Division
Division on Earth and Life Studies
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (G2014-14537), the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (#2014168; #2016055), the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the National Institutes of Health (#HHSN26300083). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-46249-5
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-46249-5
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/24827
Library of Congress Control Number: 2017950551
Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Strengthening the disaster resilience of the academic biomedical research community: Protecting the nation’s investment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24827.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON STRENGTHENING THE DISASTER RESILIENCE OF ACADEMIC RESEARCH COMMUNITIES
GEORGES C. BENJAMIN (Chair), Executive Director, American Public Health Association
JOHN G. BENITEZ, Medical Director, Emergency Preparedness, Tennessee Department of Health
ANDREW C. CANNONS, Laboratory Director, Bureau of Public Health Laboratories–Tampa, Division of Disease Control and Health Protection, Florida Department of Health
PRESCOTT DEININGER, Director, Tulane Cancer Center, Tulane University
BRADFORD S. GOODWIN, JR., Former Director (retired), Animal Research Facilities, University of Texas Health Science Center
ALEXANDER ISAKOV, Executive Director, Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, Emory University
LISA GRANT LUDWIG, Professor of Public Health, Program in Public Health, University of California, Irvine
KIRK PAWLOWSKI, Architect
CHRIS D. POLAND, Consulting Engineer, National Institute of Standards and Technology Disaster Resilience Fellow
NEIL RAMBO, Director, New York University Health Science Library and Knowledge Informatics, Ehrman Medical Library, New York University School of Medicine Langone Medical Center
JOHN A. ROCK, Founding Dean and Senior Vice President for Health Affairs, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University
LEONARD TAYLOR, JR., Senior Vice President, Operations and Support Services, University of Maryland Medical Center
CATHERINE VOGELWEID, Clinical Professor, Department of Veterinary Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri
Study Staff
LISA BROWN, Study Director
CLAIRE GIAMMARIA, Associate Program Officer (from September 2016)
MARIA BABIRYE, Senior Program Assistant (from August 2016)
ASHLEY OTTEWELL, Research Associate (until September 2016)
KATYE MAGEE, Senior Program Assistant (until August 2016)
JOHN (JACK) HERRMANN, Senior Program Officer (until August 2016)
Board on Health Sciences Policy Staff
HILARY BRAGG, Program Coordinator
ANDREW M. POPE, Board Director
Board on Earth Sciences and Resources Staff
SAMMANTHA MAGSINO, Senior Program Officer
Institute for Laboratory Animal Research Staff
LIDA ANESTIDOU, Senior Program Officer
Consultant
ELLEN CARLIN, Science Writer
Reviewers
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Mary Comerio, University of California, Berkeley
Paul Gaffney, Monmouth University
Naim Kapucu, School of Public Administration, University of Central Florida
Gabor D. Kelen, Johns Hopkins University
Andre Le Duc, University of Oregon
Garry MacPherson, University of California, San Diego
Anneliese M. McCann, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Josh Meyer, Jacobs Consultancy
Peter Palese, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
William Stead, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
James R. Swearengen, AAALAC International
Phyllis M. Wise, Colorado Longitudinal Study
Laurel Wood, University of Kentucky Police Department
Stephen M. Woods, Yale University
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Lewis R. Goldfrank, New York University School of Medicine and Bellevue Hospital Center, and Bobbie Berkowitz, Columbia University School of Nursing. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Preface
Our academic biomedical research community is a major economic and intellectual driver for innovation not only in the United States, but worldwide. As a nation, our public and private investment in medical and health research was over $158 billion in calendar year 2015. More than $35 billion of that was from the federal government, with the bulk of it from the National Institutes of Health. This significant investment of both money and time must be properly protected to minimize the loss of important scientific discoveries.
Disasters can be costly to academic biomedical research not only because of the potential loss of facilities and equipment, which can be replaced, but also because of the potential loss of the irreplaceable, such as the lives of humans and research animals, research specimens, data, and critical components of current experiments. In some cases, the loss of even a few months of work can be catastrophic for a researcher. A disaster affects not only the people involved in the research endeavor but also can influence an institution’s funding streams and reputation, and therefore its ability to recruit researchers, with researchers choosing to go to other institutions where they might feel their futures are more secure.
Resilience is the ability to prepare for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events such as disasters. These adverse events can be as small as a single laboratory fire or as large as the total destruction that could occur with an earthquake or hurricane. Our task as a committee was to define the academic biomedical research community, to better understand its state of preparedness, and to propose measures that would strengthen the resilience of the research enterprise should disaster strike.
The committee conducted its work by reviewing the scope of the academic biomedical research community. It then explored the experiences of biomedical research institutions that had been affected by disasters in order to understand the impact on their facilities, research funding, and research materials, the disruptions in the conduct of their research, and even the potential impact to their researchers’ careers. This was done through a review of the published literature, news stories, and presentations by individuals from these facilities and other experts in the field. We also conducted a site visit to New York University—a 2012 victim of Hurricane Sandy—and to the emergency response center of New York City. We looked at policies, procedures, planning processes including design and construction standards, training, financial and enterprise risk assessments, and recovery planning. We reviewed previous disasters from a facilities planning perspective with a particular focus on vivaria—because of the unique nature of animal research and the fact that the animals are unable to help themselves during a catastrophic event—as well as on what their loss means to the research enterprise. We took a systems approach, recognizing that any response by the research enterprise is one component of a broader institutional and community response plan.
What we discovered was of great concern because historically there has been a general lack of preparedness as an organized effort by those facilities that could be affected by such disasters. While there have been some efforts in this area, the committee believes we have a long way to go to optimize the resilience of the academic biomedical research community. Despite the academic biomedical research community already having experienced several significant disasters, there is a large gap today between the community’s existing level of preparedness and what the community will require to optimally recover from disasters. This report provides recommendations to significantly close this gap.
I want to first thank the staff of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, who worked tirelessly to provide the critical support for this important report. I am grateful as well to my colleagues on this committee who dedicated their time and expertise to studying the evidence about the problem and to crafting an important series of recommendations that, if implemented, will make our academic biomedical research community, a critical national resource, much more resilient when disaster strikes.
Georges C. Benjamin, Chair
Committee on Strengthening the Disaster
Resilience of Academic Research Communities
Acknowledgments
This Consensus Study Report would not have been possible without the many experts dedicated to both biomedical research and disaster resilience who generously contributed their time and expertise to inform the development of this report. The committee would like to thank all of the speakers (whose full names and affiliations are found in Appendix A) and participants who played a role in the public workshops. The committee is thankful for the many contributions of these individuals. Their willingness to share their perspectives and experiences was essential to the committee’s work. We also thank the numerous other stakeholders who shared information with the committee over the course of the study.
The committee would also like to thank the sponsors for their generous financial support: the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the National Institutes of Health. Without additional financial support from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the site visit to New York City would not have been possible.
Many others within the National Academies provided support to this project in various ways. The committee would like to thank the staff of the Health and Medicine Division’s (HMD’s) Executive Office and Office of Communications. The committee is also grateful to Jim Banihashemi for his financial assistance on this project. We would like to thank Daniel Bearss and the National Academies Research Center staff for their assistance in the committee’s research efforts. Finally, Robert Pool is to be credited for his editorial assistance in preparing this report.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
PART I: OVERVIEW OF DISASTERS AND THE ACADEMIC BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY
1 THE ACADEMIC BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY—VITAL TO THE NATION
The Importance of the Academic Biomedical Research Community
The United States: A Global Leader in Biomedical and Biological Research
Disasters and the Academic Biomedical Research Community
Overview of the Increasing Frequency, Costs, and Impacts of Disasters
The Impact of Prior Disasters on the Academic Biomedical Research Community: In Brief
2 IMPACTS OF PRIOR DISASTERS ON THE ACADEMIC BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY
Impacts on the Individual Researcher: Faculty, Staff, Students
Loss of Ability to Get to and from Work
Personal and Psychological Impacts
Impacts on the Academic Research Institution
Samples, Reagents, and Specialized Research Equipment
Hazardous Agents: Chemical, Biological, and Radiological
Utilities and Other Critical Infrastructure
Interruptions to Supply Chains and Critical Services
Impacts on the Research Sponsor
3 DEFINING THE ACADEMIC BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY IN THE CONTEXT OF DISASTER RESILIENCE
Core Staff Functions of an Academic Research Institution
The Principal Investigator and Individual Research Laboratories
The Academic Research Institution
Hazardous Reagents and Select Agents
Financial Aspects of an Academic Research Institution
Insurance and Clinical Practice
PART II: THE PROCESS FOR ADVANCING DISASTER RESILIENCE
4 FOUNDATIONS IN COMMUITY RESILIENCE AND THE NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS SYSTEM
Broadly Examining Resilience at the Institutional Level
Broadly Examining Resilience at the Research Enterprise Level
The National Preparedness System
The National Planning Frameworks
Integration Among the National Planning Frameworks
Public Information and Warning
5 PREVENTION, PROTECTION, AND MITIGATION PLANNING
6 RESPONSE AND RECOVERY PLANNING
Common Patterns in Disaster Response and Recovery
General Discussion of the Recovery Phase
Recommended Priorities for Recovery
Resources—What, When, and How Much?
Defining and Measuring Recovery Success
PART III: SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
7 DISASTER RESILIENCE AND ANIMAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS
The Presence of Animals in a Disaster
Regulatory Requirements and Guidelines
Factors That Affect the Success of Plans
The Complexity of the Research Animal Housing Environment
Consolidation of Research Animals into Centralized Facilities
The Prevailing Attitude That a Disaster Will Not Occur
Planning for Animal Research Programs
Prevention, Protection, and Mitigation Planning
Response and Recovery Planning
8 A RESILENT BUILT ENVIRONMENT FOR THE RESEARCH ENTERPRISE
What Does the Academic Research Institution Need from the Built Environment?
The Current Built Environment of the Research Enterprise
Case Study—University of Washington Conceptual Plan to Improve Resilience
Developing and Implementing Prioritized Programs
Individual Researcher Considerations
Pre-Disaster Financial Considerations
Post-Disaster Financial Considerations
Research Department Considerations
Pre-Disaster Financial Considerations
Post-Disaster Financial Considerations
Academic Research Institution Considerations
Insurance and Enterprise Risk Management
Capital Planning and Resource Allocation
Role of Philanthropy and Endowments
Federal Programs and Their Applications
Non-Federal Resources and Their Applications
Challenges in Applying for Funding
Overcoming Barriers to Funding
10 THE ESSENTIAL ROLE OF RESEARCH SPONSORS
Research Sponsor Responsibilities: Fostering Resilience
Capital Infrastructure Resilience
Research-Related Assets Resilience
Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Threat Resilience
Gaps in Research Sponsor Resilience Efforts
Research Sponsor Responsibilities: Facilitating Response and Recovery
Gaps in Sponsor Response and Recovery Efforts
The Healthcare and Public Health Critical Infrastructure Sector
Boxes, Figures, and Tables
BOXES
S-1 Blueprint for Advancing the Disaster Resilience of the Academic Biomedical Research Community
1-2 Defining the Academic Biomedical Research Community
1-3 Defining Disaster and Resilience
1-4 Ways in Which Disasters Can Impact the Academic Biomedical Research Community
4-1 Key Areas of the National Preparedness System and the National Planning Frameworks
5-1 Fictional Scenario from the Federation of American Scientists
5-2 Hurricane Ike and Mutual Aid Agreements
5-3 The University of Iowa Hazard Mitigation Plan
9-1 Financial Considerations for Academic Research Institutions
10-1 HPH Sector Partnership Goals
FIGURES
S-1 Goals of a resilient academic biomedical research community
1-3 University R&D funding by source, expenditures in billions, FY 2016 dollars
1-4 Sources life sciences expenditures at universities, excluding agricultural sciences, FY 2014
1-5 Goals of a resilient academic biomedical research community
3-2 Example of a typical organizational structure of an academic research institution
4-1 Visualization of NYU Langone’s roadmap to resilience for its research enterprise
4-3 Steps in a common planning process
5-1 Example of a NYU Langone research preparedness initiative
5-2 Emory University ERM executive sponsors, risk chairs, and framework
6-1 Common patterns in disaster response and recovery
6-2 Sample laboratories resilience assessment at NYU Langone
6-5 Example of an academic research institution ICS structure
6-6 The command structure for the Rockefeller University in a disaster
6-9 Community-wide recovery activities
6-10 Recovery plan’s adoption of an ICS-based organizational structure
9-1 Destroyed fume hood as a result of 2011 Great Tohoku Japan Earthquake
9-3 A visualization of risk-layering strategies
E-1 FIU’s disaster preparedness checklist for research laboratories
TABLES
1-1 Estimated U.S. Medical and Health Research Expenditures, 2013–2015
3-1 Suggested Roles of Individual Research Laboratories in Disaster Resilience
3-2 Suggested Roles of Key Institutional Personnel in Disaster Resilience
3-3 Suggested Roles of Governing Bodies in Disaster Resilience
3-4 Suggested Roles of Research Sponsors in Disaster Resilience
4-1 Existence of Plans Among Responding Institutions
5-1 Critical Business Processes, Research
6-1 Relevant FEMA Training Courses
8-1 NIST Planning Guide Performance Level Definitions
8-2 NIST Hazard Levels for Buildings and Systems
8-3 NIST Hazard Impact Categories
8-4 Example of a Design-Level Performance Matrix: Academic Research Facility Performance Goals
8-5 Example of an Extreme-Level Performance Matrix: Academic Research Facility Performance Goals
9-1 Select Federal Programs Providing Funding for Disaster Resilience
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AAAS |
American Association for the Advancement of Science |
AAHC |
Association of Academic Health Centers |
AALAS |
American Association for Laboratory Animal Science |
AAMC |
Association of American Medical Colleges |
AAU |
Association of American Universities |
AAUP |
American Association of University Professors |
APA |
American Planning Association |
APHL |
Association of Public Health Laboratories |
ASPR TRACIE |
Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Technical Resources, Assistance Center, and Information Exchange |
AVMA |
American Veterinary Medical Association |
BCP |
business continuity plan |
BEAP |
building emergency action plan |
BSAT |
biological select agent or toxin |
BSL |
biosafety level |
CAE |
Council for Aid to Education |
CDC |
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention |
CEPAR |
Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response |
CFO |
chief financial officer |
CFR |
Code of Federal Regulations |
CI |
critical infrastructure |
CITI |
Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative |
CSHEMA |
Campus Safety, Health, and Environmental Management Association |
CUNY |
City University of New York |
DFID |
Department for International Development |
DHS |
Department of Homeland Security |
DoD |
Department of Defense |
DR2 |
Disaster Research Response (NIH) |
DRAA |
Disaster Relief Appropriations Act |
DRM |
Design Requirements Manual |
DRU |
Disaster-Resistant University |
DRU Network |
Disaster Resilient Universities® Network |
EAB |
Education Advisory Board |
ED |
Department of Education |
ELN |
electronic laboratory notebook |
EMHE |
Emergency Management for Higher Education |
EMSI |
Economic Modeling Specialists International |
EOC |
emergency operations center |
EOP |
emergency operations plans |
EPA |
Environmental Protection Agency |
ERM |
enterprise risk management |
FAS |
Federation of American Scientists |
FASEB |
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology |
FAST |
Florida Advanced Surgical Transport team |
FBI |
Federal Bureau of Investigation |
FDA |
Food and Drug Administration |
FEMA |
Federal Emergency Management Agency |
FERPA |
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act |
FHWA |
Federal Highway Administration |
FIU |
Florida International University |
FMA |
Flood Mitigation Assistance |
FMAG |
Fire Management Assistance Grant |
FSAP |
Federal Select Agent Program |
GAO |
Government Accountability Office |
GCC |
Government Coordinating Council |
GDP |
gross domestic product |
GFOA |
Government Finance Officers Association |
GPO |
Government Publishing Office |
GTRI |
Global Threat Reduction Initiative |
HHS |
Department of Health and Human Services |
HIPAA |
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act |
HMGP |
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program |
HPH |
health care and public health |
HVA |
hazard vulnerability assessment |
HVAC |
heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning |
IACUC |
institutional animal care and use committee |
IAEA |
International Atomic Energy Agency |
IAEM |
International Association of Emergency Managers |
IAEM-UCC |
International Association of Emergency Managers–Universities and Colleges Caucus |
IBC |
International Building Code |
ICC |
International Code Council |
ICS |
incident command system |
III |
Insurance Information Institute |
IIWAM |
information/influence warfare and manipulation |
IO |
institutional official |
IOM |
Institute of Medicine |
ISO |
International Organization for Standardization |
IT |
information technology |
IVC |
individually ventilated caging |
LEPC |
local emergency planning committee |
LIMS |
laboratory information management system |
LSUHSC |
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center |
MAA |
mutual aid agreement |
MMRRC |
Mutant Mouse Resource and Research Centers |
MOU |
memorandum of understanding |
NABR |
National Association of Biomedical Research |
NACUBO |
National Association of College and University Business Officers |
NAE |
National Academy of Engineering |
NCCPS |
National Center for Campus Public Safety |
NDRF |
National Disaster Recovery Framework |
NEIDL |
National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories at Boston University |
NFIP |
National Flood Insurance Program |
NFPA |
National Fire Protection Association |
NIAID |
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases |
NIH |
National Institutes of Health |
NIH–ABRF |
National Institutes of Health–Association of Biomolecular Research Facilities |
NIMAA |
National Intercollegiate Mutual Aid Agreement |
NIMS |
National Incident Management System |
NIST |
National Institute of Standards and Technology |
NIST Framework |
NIST Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity |
NIST Planning Guide |
NIST Community Resilience Planning Guide for Buildings and Infrastructure Systems: Volume I |
NNSA |
National Nuclear Security Administration |
NOAA |
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
NRC |
National Research Council |
NSB |
National Science Board |
NSC |
National Safety Council |
NSF |
National Science Foundation |
NVRT |
National Veterinary Response Team |
NYULMC |
New York University Langone Medical Center |
OLAW |
Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare |
OPERA |
Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration |
OSHA |
Occupational Safety and Health Administration |
OSTP |
Office of Science and Technology Policy |
PDM |
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program |
PERLC |
Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Center |
PETS |
Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act |
PHS |
Public Health Service |
PHS Policy |
PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals |
PI |
principal investigator |
PPD |
Presidential Policy Directive |
R&D |
research and development |
RARC |
research animal resource center |
RBC |
Royal Bank of Canada |
RDD |
radiological dispersal device |
REMS |
Readiness and Emergency Mmanagement for Schools Technical Assistance Center |
RMPO |
risk management process owner |
RMS |
Risk Management Solutions |
RPO |
recovery point objective |
RTO |
recovery time objective |
RUCBC |
Rockefeller University Comparative Bioscience Center |
SCC |
Sector Coordinating Council |
SCUP |
Society for College and University Planning |
START |
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism |
STEM |
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics |
The Guide |
Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals |
THIRA |
threat and hazard identification and risk assessment |
UC |
University of California |
UK |
University of Kentucky |
UMD |
University of Maryland |
UNISDR |
United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction |
UPS |
uninterruptible power supply |
USDA–APHIS |
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service |
USF |
University of Southern Florida |
USGS |
U.S. Geological Survey |
USPTO |
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office |
UTHSC-H |
University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston |
UTMB |
University of Texas Medical Branch |
UW |
University of Washington |
VA |
Department of Veterans Affairs |
VMAT |
Veterinary Medical Assistance Team |
VTC |
Virginia Tidewater Consortium |
ZAHN |
Zoo Animal Health Network |
ZAHP Fusion Center |
Zoo and Aquarium All-Hazards Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Fusion Center |
This page intentionally left blank.
Glossary
Academic biomedical research community—Broadly encompasses those research sponsors, academic research institutions and their research enterprises, and researchers involved in the conduct of biomedical and biological research.
Academic research institution—Any academic institution of higher education or research institute that supports multiple research projects.
All-hazards planning—Comprehensive emergency management planning that considers all threats and hazards throughout the planning process, addressing safety needs before, during, and after an incident.
Build-back standards—Design and construction requirements related to the repair, retrofit, rehabilitation, or replacement for a facility damaged in a disaster. These standards are often related to the standards used for the original construction unless the damages exceed 50 percent of the facility value or there is a desire to “build back better.” In that case, the design and construction usually follows the current standards for new buildings (ICC, 2015).
Business continuity plan—Business continuity plans identify critical operating functions and the causes of business interruption and describe strategies for the recovery of essential services in priority order (Dungan, 2014).
Capital planning—An integral part of an institution’s strategic planning process which involves the process of analyzing, giving priority to, and allocating funds for the major construction and maintenance of infrastructure in a given community. Capital planning leads to the development of a capital plan.
Crisis communications plan—A plan that outlines the roles, responsibilities, and protocols that will guide the prompt sharing information during an emergency or crisis.
Design events—Events that are expected to occur once in the life of the building or system and are often the basis of mitigation planning (NIST, 2015).
Disaster—A serious disruption of the functioning of the community involving human, material, economic, or environmental losses and impacts and which exceeds the ability of the community to cope using its own resources. Using this definition, disasters can range from a laboratory fire that destroys a researcher’s work to a federal disaster declaration that impacts the broader community (UNISDR, 2009).
Emergency operations plan—A plan that contains the details of the operational strategy for the disaster response.
Enterprise risk management—A holistic approach to strategic planning and risk management that provides a framework for entity-wide risk identification, the prioritization of key exposures, and the development of operational responses to adverse events, based upon a foundation of ownership, accountability, and transparency. An enterprise risk management plan reflects the integration of strategic planning, risk management, and financial controls (Klein, 2016).
Fail-safe design—A type of design that incorporates components or processes into buildings or other engineered systems that will mitigate losses caused by system or component failures. The design assumption is that if failure occurs (e.g., in the air-handling system, the environmental cooling system for animal care, small-animal housing equipment, electricity, or water supply systems to the vivarium), then the device, system, or process will fail in a safe manner which will result in continued life support for the research animals. This fail-safe design also suggests a level of system redundancy; during the study process it was defined as N+1 or N+2.
Hazard mitigation plan—A comprehensive, long-term plan based on a threat and hazard identification and risk assessment that describes long-term strategies for protecting people and property from future disasters.
Healthcare and Public Health Sector—A critical infrastructure sector whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on national security, economic security, public health or safety, or some combination thereof. The sector includes publicly accessible health care facilities, research centers, suppliers, manufacturers, and other physical assets and vast, complex public–private information technology systems (DHS, 2016).
Incident command system—A management system designed to enable effective and efficient domestic incident management by integrating a combination of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications operating within a common organizational structure (FEMA, 2016a).
Mitigation—The capabilities necessary to reduce the loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters (FEMA, 2016d).
National Incident Management System—A set of concepts, operational principles, terminology, and organizational structure that enables the effective, efficient, and collaborative management of any incident, regardless of size or complexity (FEMA, 2016c).
National Preparedness System—An organized process for the whole community, including academic research institutions, to move forward with their preparedness activities and to be prepared for all-hazards. The National Preparedness System integrates efforts across five areas: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery (FEMA, 2016e).
Prevention—The capabilities necessary to avoid, prevent, or stop a threatened or actual act of terrorism. In this context, the term prevention refers to preventing imminent threats. (FEMA, 2016f).
Protection—The capabilities necessary to secure against acts of terrorism and manmade or natural disasters (FEMA, 2016g).
Recovery—The capabilities necessary to restore and rebuild the community following a disaster (FEMA, 2016b).
Recovery plan—A plan that sets forth the procedures necessary to restore and rebuild following a disaster. The recovery plan should clearly identify decision-making authority in activating disaster recovery procedures.
Research enterprise—An entity that defines the policies, procedures, organizational structure, staffing, facilities, and practices used to fulfill an academic institution’s research mission.
Research-related assets—Research data, samples, reagents, laboratory space, and specialized equipment, among other materials.
Research sponsor—An individual, institution, company, or organization that takes the responsibility to initiate, manage, or finance the research project but does not actually conduct the investigation.
Researchers—Any or all of the three below entities unless one is specifically mentioned:
Principal investigators—Faculty members who direct research projects; further broken down into established principal investigators, early-career investigators, and new investigators.
Research staff—Typically professionals hired to carry out research who are under the direction of the principal investigator.
Research students and trainees—Most commonly, doctoral students and postdoctoral (M.D. or Ph.D.) trainees.
Resilience—The ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events (NRC, 2012). Using this definition, resilience can range from the ability of the researcher to the ability of the academic research institution to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to adverse events.
Response—The capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic human needs after an incident. (FEMA, 2016h).
Threat and hazard identification and risk assessment—A standard process for identifying community-specific threats and hazards and setting capability targets for each core capability identified in the National Preparedness Goal (FEMA, 2013).
Training and exercise plan—A plan that documents an organization’s overall training and exercise priorities for a specific multiyear time period.
Unified command—The unified command organization consists of the incident commanders from the various jurisdictions or agencies operating together to form a single command structure in the field (FEMA, 2016a).
REFERENCES
DHS (Department of Homeland Security). 2016. Healthcare and public health sector-specific plan. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/nipp-ssp-healthcare-publichealth-2015-508.pdf (accessed February 28, 2017).
Dungan, K. 2014. Disaster resiliency and NFPA codes and standards. Quincy, MA: Fire Protection Research Foundation. http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/fire-statisticsand-reports/research-reports/building-and-life-safety/general-life-safety-issues/disasterresiliency-and-nfpa-codes-and-standards (accessed October 16, 2016).
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013. Threat and hazard identification and risk assessment guide: Comprehensive preparedness guide (CPG). https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/8ca0a9e54dc8b037a55b402b2a269e94/CPG201_htirag_2nd_edition.pdf (accessed September 6, 2016).
———. 2016a. Incident Command System Resources. https://www.fema.gov/incident-command-system-resources (accessed May 18, 2017).
———. 2016b. National Disaster Recovery Framework (second edition). https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1466014998123-4bec8550930f774269e0c5968b120ba2/National_Disaster_Recovery_Framework2nd.pdf (accessed September 6, 2016).
———. 2016c. National Incident Management System. https://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system (accessed September 6, 2016).
———. 2016d. National Mitigation Framework (second edition). https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1466014166147-11a14dee807e1ebc67cd9b74c6c64bb3/National_Mitigation_Framework2nd.pdf (accessed September 6, 2016).
———. 2016e. National Preparedness System. https://www.fema.gov/national-preparedness-system (accessed September 6, 2016).
———. 2016f. National Prevention Framework (second edition). http://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1466017209279-83b72d5959787995794c0874095500b1/National_Prevention_Framework2nd.pdf (accessed September 6, 2016).
———. 2016g. National Protection Framework (second edition). https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1466017309052-85051ed62fe595d4ad026edf4d85541e/National_Protection_Framework2nd.pdf (accessed September 6, 2016).
———. 2016h. National Response Framework (third edition). https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1466014682982-9bcf8245ba4c60c120aa915abe74e15d/National_Response_Framework3rd.pdf (accessed September 6, 2016).
ICC (International Code Council). 2015. 2015 International Building Code (IBC). http://codes.iccsafe.org/app/book/toc/2015/I-Codes/2015%20IBC%20HTML (accessed March 4, 2017).
Klein, S. 2016. Enterprise risk management: A collaborative approach to risk mitigation. PowerPoint presentation to the Committee on Strengthening the Disaster Resilience of Academic Research Communities. Available by request through the National Academies’ Public Access Records Office.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 2015. Community resilience planning guide for buildings and infrastructure systems: Volume 1. http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1190v1.pdf (accessed September 7, 2016).
NRC (National Research Council). 2012. Disaster resilience: A national imperative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
UNISDR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2009. Terminology. https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-d (accessed February 28, 2017).