NIH Halts Work at High-Level Infectious Disease Laboratory
U.S. health officials have shut down work at a laboratory in Maryland that works on high-risk infectious diseases.
Health officials halted work at the Integrated Research Facility at Fort Detrick, also known as IRF-Frederick, after multiple safety violations, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) official told The Epoch Times in an email on May 5.
The official confirmed that one of the incidents was one researcher poking a hole in another researcher's personal protective equipment.
The other safety violations are not clear.
An email sent to the National Interagency Confederation for Biomedical Research, a consortium of eight agencies that oversees the IRF and other research facilities at Fort Detrick, was not returned. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a division of the NIH that manages the work at the IRF, did not respond to a request for comment.
Researchers at the IRF handle high-risk pathogens, including avian influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome, and Ebola. The facility 'has the capability' to perform research at biosafety level four, which indicates the highest risk, the IRF's website
Related Stories
4/16/2025
5/4/2025
Work at the IRF will resume 'as soon as the safety of our team is assured,' the Department of Health and Human Services, the parent agency of the NIH,
Officials who work for Frederick, a city and county in which Fort Detrick is located, said they were concerned about the work stoppage.
'This facility has been at the forefront of studying deadly infectious diseases, including Ebola, and its work is crucial for public health and safety,' Frederick County Executive Jessica Fitzwater and four members of the Frederick County Council, including its president, Brad Young, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.
'The indefinite pause in its operations not only jeopardizes ongoing research but also undermines our preparedness for future outbreaks.
'Frederick County has long been a hub for scientific innovation and research. The IRF's contributions have not only advanced our understanding of infectious diseases but have also brought significant economic benefits to our community. The closure of this lab threatens to disrupt our local economy, potentially leading to job losses and a decline in scientific collaboration. We urge the federal government to reconsider this decision and recognize the vital role that the IRF plays in safeguarding public health and supporting our local economy. The work conducted at this facility is too important to be halted indefinitely.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hundreds of CDC employees reinstated after being laid off
The Brief Over 460 CDC employees have been reinstated after April layoffs, mainly from public health divisions. Thousands of jobs remain unfilled, with no word on further reinstatements. RFK Jr. appointed eight new vaccine advisers, including controversial figure Dr. Robert Malone. ATLANTA - More than 460 employees at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have been reinstated after being laid off earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) confirmed Wednesday, according to the Associated Press. What we know The employees are among the approximately 2,400 CDC staffers let go in April, a move that sparked widespread backlash and legal challenges. According to HHS, the reinstated workers include 200 employees from the Center for HIV, Hepatitis, STD and Tuberculosis Prevention and another 150 from the Environmental Health division, which includes a lab focused on lead poisoning prevention. PREVIOUS STORIES Reactions to mass layoffs underway at Atlanta-based CDC 2,400 CDC jobs to be cut in HHS overhaul announced by Secretary Kennedy CDC to lose nearly 1,300 probationary employees under Trump's job cuts Former employees and public health advocates have criticized the layoffs for leaving vital public health positions vacant. Reese Williams, a former CDC worker, said the terminations affected key personnel. "They fired a lot of our scientists, a lot of our public health communicators, a lot of anybody to do with DEI, birth defects, anything to do with smoke and health, domestic abuse and domestic violence," Williams said. Williams says the 2,400 roles that were eliminated this year played a critical role in public health. "They took a part a lot of the funding for our global partners. Funding that goes for Ebola or for these diseases that don't necessarily effect us, but could effect us, they took away a lot of that," she said. This is the second wave of reinstatements. In February, about 180 employees who were laid off were later asked to return. Despite the new round of rehirings, thousands of jobs remain unfilled, and officials have not indicated if additional reinstatements are forthcoming. Employees say many vital positions are still left empty. "Eventually, we will all feel this. Even the ones who think they won't feel it. We're going to feel it," Reese said. Meanwhile, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has appointed eight new members to the federal vaccine advisory committee. The move follows his abrupt dismissal of the previous panel earlier this week. Among the new appointees is Dr. Robert Malone, a controversial figure known for spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. RELATED STORIES RFK Jr.'s newest CDC vaccine panel includes critics of COVID shots, lockdowns Protest against CDC vaccine committee firings held at Atlanta headquarters RFK Jr. ousts entire CDC vaccine panel The committee advises the CDC director on how approved vaccines should be used nationwide.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Federal R&D funding boosts productivity for the whole economy − making big cuts to such government spending unwise
Large cuts to government-funded research and development can endanger American innovation – and the vital productivity gains it supports. The Trump administration has already canceled at least US$1.8 billion in research grants previously awarded by the National Institutes of Health, which supports biomedical and health research. Its preliminary budget request for the 2026 fiscal year proposed slashing federal funding for scientific and health research, cutting the NIH budget by another $18 billion – nearly a 40% reduction. The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the basic scientific research conducted at universities, would see its budget slashed by $5 billion – cutting it by more than half. Research and development spending might strike you as an unnecessary expense for the government. Perhaps you see it as something universities or private companies should instead be paying for themselves. But as research I've conducted shows, if the government were to abandon its long-standing practice of investing in R&D, it would significantly slow the pace of U.S. innovation and economic growth. I'm an economist at Texas A&M University. For the past five years, I've been studying the long-term economic benefits of government-funded R&D with Karel Mertens, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. We have found that government R&D spending on everything from the Apollo space program to the Human Genome Project has fueled innovation. We also found that federal R&D spending has played a significant role in boosting U.S. productivity and spurring economic growth over the past 75 years. Productivity rises when economic growth is caused by technological progress and know-how, rather than workers putting in more hours or employers using more equipment and machinery. Economists believe that higher productivity fuels economic growth and raises living standards over the long run. U.S. productivity growth fell by half, from an average of roughly 2% a year in the 1950s and 1960s to about 1%, starting in the early 1970s. This deceleration eerily coincides with a big decline in government R&D spending, which peaked at over 1.8% of gross domestic product in the mid-1960s. Government R&D spending has declined since then and has fallen by half – to below 0.9% of GDP – today. Government R&D spending encompasses all innovative work the government directly pays for, regardless of who does it. Private companies and universities conduct a lot of this work, as do national labs and federal agencies, like the NIH. Correlation is not causation. But in a Dallas Fed working paper released in November 2024, my co-author and I identified a strong causal link between government R&D spending and U.S. productivity growth. We estimated that government R&D spending consistently accounted for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. And a decline in that spending after the 1960s can account for nearly one-fourth of the deceleration in productivity since then. These significant productivity gains came from R&D investments by federal agencies that are not focused on national defense. Examples include the NIH's support for biomedical research, the Department of Energy's funding for physics and energy research, and NASA's spending on aeronautics and space exploration technologies. Not all productivity growth is driven by government R&D. Economists think public investment in physical infrastructure, such as construction of the interstate highway system starting in the Eisenhower administration, also spurred productivity growth. And U.S. productivity growth briefly accelerated during the information technology boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which we do not attribute to government R&D investment. We have found that government R&D investment is more effective than private R&D spending at driving productivity, likely because the private sector tends to spend much more on the development side of R&D, while the public sector tends to emphasize research. Economists believe the private sector will naturally underinvest in more fundamental research because it is harder to patent and profit from this work. We think our higher estimated returns on nondefense R&D reflect greater productivity benefits from fundamental research, which generates more widely shared knowledge, than from private sector spending on development. Like the private sector, the Department of Defense spends much more on development – of weapons and military technology – than on fundamental research. We found only inconclusive evidence on the returns on military R&D. R&D work funded by the Defense Department also tends to initially be classified and kept secret from geopolitical rivals, such as the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. As a result, gains for the whole economy from that source of innovation could take longer to materialize than the 15-year time frame we have studied. The high returns on nondefense R&D that we estimated suggest that Congress has historically underinvested in these areas. For instance, the productivity gains from nondefense R&D are at least 10 times higher than those from government investments in highways, bridges and other kinds of physical infrastructure. The government has also invested far more in physical infrastructure than R&D over the past 75 years. Increasing R&D investment would take advantage of these higher returns and gradually reduce them because of diminishing marginal returns to additional investment. So why is the government not spending substantially more on R&D? One argument sometimes heard against federal R&D spending is that it displaces, or 'crowds out,' R&D spending the private sector would otherwise undertake. For instance, the administration's budget request proposed reducing or eliminating NASA space technology programs it deemed 'better suited to private sector research and development.' But my colleague and I have found that government spending on R&D complements private investment. An additional dollar of government nondefense R&D spending causes the private sector to increase its R&D spending by an additional 20 cents. So we expect budget cuts to the NIH, NSF and NASA to actually reduce R&D spending by companies, which is also bad for economic growth. Federal R&D spending is also often on the chopping block whenever Congress focuses on deficit reduction. In part, that likely reflects the gradual nature of the economic benefits from government-funded R&D, which are at odds with the country's four-year electoral cycles. Similarly, the benefits from NIH spending on biomedical research are usually less visible than government spending on Medicare or Medicaid, which are health insurance programs for those 65 years and older and those with low incomes or disabilities. But Medicare or Medicaid help Americans buy prescription drugs and medical devices that were invented with the help of NIH-funded research. Even if the benefits of government R&D are slow to materialize or are harder to see than those from other government programs, our research suggests that the U.S. economy will be less innovative and productive – and Americans will be worse off for it – if Congress agrees to deep cuts to science and research funding. The views expressed in the Dallas Fed working paper are the views of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas or the Federal Reserve System. Andrew Fieldhouse does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Medscape
5 hours ago
- Medscape
Family Ties May Shape Hashimoto Thyroiditis Risk
The odds of developing Hashimoto thyroiditis (HT) were significantly elevated in first-, second-, and third-degree relatives of patients with HT, with female relatives having a disproportionately higher likelihood. Of note, the odds of developing HT were elevated among spouses of patients. METHODOLOGY: Relatives of patients with HT are at an increased risk for HT; however, studies have primarily focused on first-degree relatives and often employed very small sample sizes. Researchers conducted a retrospective case-control study using genealogical and medical data from a Utah-based database (1996-2021) to estimate the risk for HT in relatives across various degrees of relatedness. They included 92,405 adult HT probands (73% women; 96% White individuals) and 184,810 matched control individuals, along with 2,960,650 first-, second-, and third-degree relatives of HT probands and 5,730,159 relatives of control individuals. TAKEAWAY: Relatives of patients with HT were at an increased risk for the condition, with the highest odds observed for first-degree relatives (odds ratio [OR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.74-1.80), followed by second-degree (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.22-1.27) and third-degree (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.10-1.12) relatives. The risk for HT was an additional 2.2- to 2.6-fold higher in female relatives of patients with HT than overall estimates, across all degrees of relatedness. Among first-degree relatives, sons of men with HT had a markedly elevated risk for HT (OR, 2.36; 95% CI, 2.10-2.65). Wives of men with HT and husbands of women with HT were at an increased likelihood of developing HT, suggesting the effect of a shared environment. IN PRACTICE: 'These findings also have clinical implications, as understanding familial clustering of HT can help healthcare providers identify individuals at higher risk, especially those with affected FDRs [first-degree relatives]. This knowledge could lead to earlier monitoring and intervention, improving disease management,' the authors of the study wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Melissa Bujnis, PhD, Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. It was published online in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism . LIMITATIONS: Reliance on diagnostic codes may have introduced misclassification bias, particularly in cases of transient hypothyroidism or misdiagnosed HT. Variations in diagnostic practices across clinics may have introduced heterogeneity in the sample. Individuals with a family history of HT might be more likely to receive diagnosis or seek medical attention, potentially introducing ascertainment bias. DISCLOSURES: Partial support for the datasets in the database was provided by the University of Utah, Huntsman Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health (NIH). This study received support from NIH, NCRR, and Utah Department of Health and Human Services and the University of Utah. The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
