The NIH's safety assessment of a linkurl:controversial Boston University laboratory;http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/24679/ did not thoroughly develop worst case scenarios or adequately compare safety risks at other proposed sites, finds a linkurl:National Research Council report.;http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12073 The council released its 28-page report yesterday (November 29th) after the Massachusetts government commissioned it to review the NIH appraisal, which had linkurl:concluded;http://www.nems.nih.gov/aspects/nat_resources/programs/nepa2.cfm in July 2007 that the site chosen to build the laboratory was the safest among three possible sites. But according to the council's report, "The conclusions reached in the [NIH] report are not adequately supported by the analyses." The linkurl:biodefense laboratory,;http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23076/ which will include a linkurl:Biosafety Level 4 facility,;http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/53626 has faced linkurl:opposition;http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23468 from residents in the South End area of Boston where the lab is being built. Yesterday's report concluded that the NIH assessment did not use appropriate pathogens in its models of worst case scenarios. "A more suitable analysis would have included the selection...
Interested in reading more?
Become a Member of
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!