Reassured. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said the United States appeared to be moving in the right direction on regulating dual use biological
research.
US Senate
A classified briefing from US intelligence officials helped convince a majority of members of a government advisory board that the benefits of publishing two controversial studies of H5N1 bird flu outweigh the risks, according to testimony presented yesterday at a hearing of the US Senate.
The briefing late March the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) left "the impression that the risk of abuse has not increased significantly with the full publication and there a high probability of adverse political consequences of not publishing, "microbiologist Paul Keim of Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, acting chairman of NSABB, told the Committee on Homeland security and governmental Affairs.
Keim's comments, and discussion of other previously unknown details about the deliberations of the NSABB, came at a hearing to examine how the US government must manage biological research "dual use" could be used for both good and evil. The hearing was motivated in large part by the H5N1 controversy, said Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), the chairman of the committee.
Four witnesses, including Keim and Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), discussed the NSABB decision and new US government rules to identify research concern dual-use taxpayer-funded (DURC) before it starts. They also responded to criticism of the process NSABB by one of the panel members, Michael Osterholm of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, in a letter first obtained by Science Insider.
Highlights of the hearing:
- Fauci and Daniel M. Gerstein, the assistant sub Secretary for science and technology at the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), provided details on the number of studies of their screening programs Durc had reported.
- For the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci said comments were initially identified 404 intramural research projects and 147 manuscripts that could be DURC, but none proved problematic. The reviews also reported 381 grants and extramural contracts, 10 of which are currently discussed their implications for Durc. Seven of these projects involve influenza viruses, he said. The other three studies concerning anthrax, plague, botulism and officers (one each).
- At DHS, Gerstein said reviewers overlook about 225 projects a year for DURC. Just 12-15 "could perhaps be some problems with the perception" DURC they are, he says, and five to 10 fall into the "highest category" that requires further consideration.
- microbiologist Keim provided new details about the NSABB deliberations in the two documents from the flu. He revealed that last year, the council split on how much detail to expunge from one study, led by Ron Fouchier of Erasmus MC in the Netherlands, but decided unanimously that there should not be published. (in March, the Board recommended, also on a split vote , publish a revised version of the document.)
- Keim also discussed the classified briefing that Osterholm accused was "incomplete" and "useless." Keim said members Board entered the briefing "as scientists and pretty much have ... on faith that what we have heard in the risk assessments and the political consequences were made. ... It was an environment where perhaps the board a little naive. We do not have the ability to look behind these assessments ... and we were able to ask so many questions. "But the briefers were" quite confident, "he said," and this briefing in fact, suggested that the risk [of publishing the two papers] were quite minimal and the political consequences were great. And I think that had a great effect on the board. "
- Keim said he generally agreed with some Osterholm complaints made in his letter on the NSABB process, and considered" a very constructive type of communication. " But "it is regrettable that it has been disclosed and it has become part of the public dialog. It makes it difficult to have a type of constructive and proactive conversation. "
- Keim was not convinced of the burden Osterholm that expert testimony" biased "in NSABB made a big difference, though. "one point he makes in the letter was that there was in fact a bias in the witness list. I think this is true. The first witnesses that we made to ... were in fact the investigators themselves. They are inherently biased. They wanted their work published. "But" I do not think this is a big concern, "said Keim." We are scientists on this board ... and we can be very critical. ... And if the prejudices that were inherent in these types of cookies that I think has not been a problem for us. ... We were able to ask very tough questions. " The meeting Mars "was never developed as a counterpoint to the point," he added.
- Fauci said, "I disagree with most things" in the letter of Osterholm, and that NIH has "responded to a base point by point all" in it. "There were several things in there that I have to say quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that I disagree with," said Lieberman. "One of them was the concern about the safety briefing. I have great confidence in the national intelligence director to tell us what we need to know." On the issue of witnesses, Fauci also said: "We had no indication Dr. Osterholm of people he wanted to see that there were not there"
- The hearing is generally mild in. . tone, and was followed by only two senators Lieberman and Susan Collins (R-ME), Collins left early to attend other business Near the end of the hearing, Lieberman said, "I l 'learned a lot of testimony today, and overall, I am reassured by government policies that have been implemented and decision making we have a decision. "
0 Komentar