logo
NIH Lab Studying Deadly Pathogens Goes Offline Over Safety Issues. Is The Public At Risk?

NIH Lab Studying Deadly Pathogens Goes Offline Over Safety Issues. Is The Public At Risk?

Forbes04-05-2025

On April 29, 2025, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases within the NIH put the brakes on research at its high containment lab (known as the Integrated Research Facility) at Fort Detrick, Maryland for a safety stand-down. The lab studies high consequence pathogens, such as Ebola virus and SARS-CoV-2. In a report from WIRED magazine, Bradley Moss, communication director for NIH's office of research services noted 'This decision follows identification and documentation of personnel issues involving contract staff that compromised the facility's safety culture, prompting this research pause.' The IRF's director, Dr. Connie Schmaljohn, an experienced scientist and expert on hantaviruses, was also placed on administrative leave.
No further information on the cause of the safety stand-down has been reported by the NIH; however, Fox News subsequently cited an anonymous source, who stated the cause was a 'lover's spat' between facility researchers, where one individual poked holes in another's protective equipment. 'That individual has since been fired, the official indicated.' The NIH public affairs office did not respond to a query for more information.
High consequence pathogens are 'serious and deadly agents that pose a substantial threat to domestic and global security.' Many are difficult to treat and frequently do not have a preventive vaccine. Consequently, they require specialized containment facilities to study them safely, because they are known to infect laboratorians. Some additional examples include Marburg and Lassa viruses and anthrax bacteria. These are some of the deadliest infectious pathogens on the planet, with death rates that can range from approximately 25 to 90%.
Laboratories that work with human or animal samples are categorized at different 'biosafety levels,' from BSL-1 to BSL-4, with each increase in level corresponding to increasingly dangerous pathogens and concomitant increases in required safety measures. Most hospital microbiology labs work at the BSL-2 level, where deadly organisms can be worked on, such as staphylococcus, streptococcus, or even HIV, but those disease can be handled safely by working under a microbiology safety cabinet (or 'hood') with HEPA filtration, wearing gloves and a lab coat and washing your hands when you leave the lab. The biggest risk to the laboratorians would be through a splash or penetration of the skin with a sharp instrument or needle.
At the BSL-3 level, we cross into a level where 'containment' measures are needed to protect the laboratorians. Pathogens at this level are known to infect through the air and therefore require specialized air handling and personal protective equipment, such as a respirator and gowns as well as decontamination measures upon exiting the lab. Organisms worked on at the BSL-3 level, although potentially deadly, such as plague or tularemia, usually have a specific vaccine or treatment. When we move into BSL-4, we are at maximum containment. At BSL-4, we separate the person from the pathogen by either a fully encapsulated 'space' suit or by working with the organism inside a glove box. Pathogens at this level are usually highly deadly and generally have limited or no vaccines or treatments. Viruses like Ebola, Lassa and Marburg are handled under BSL-4 precautions.
There are many reasons to study these pathogens. Some are considered possible biological weapons threats. Others cause disease in endemic regions around the world, particularly in less-developed regions, such as Africa and South America. These pathogens are deadly and can cause outbreaks, so there has been a concerted effort in the military, at the NIH and academic institutions to 1) understand the ecology of where they exist in nature, 2) determine how they spread and cause disease and 3) develop countermeasures, including ways to diagnose, treat and prevent them.
Whether the public is at risk largely depends on what the problem is. I've written previously that there are four basic ways a pathogen can 'escape' a lab: through the air, human exposure, hitching a ride on an animal or inanimate object and through deliberate release. The most likely is through human exposure from a lab accident, where a laboratorian becomes infected in the lab with something contagious and once they become ill, they can spread it to others. In this situation, the idea that a laboratorian would intentionally compromise a colleague's protective suit, thus putting them at potential risk of infection with a deadly agent is unconscionable and incredibly serious. Having said that, unless the individual whose protective suit was breached became infected, there is no risk to the public from a pathogen.
In my own personal experience working in a containment laboratory and managing laboratory safety stand-downs, these can be mandated after a specific safety breach has been identified, a general attitude or 'culture' of the institution has been lax regarding safety procedures or even in response to a specific political issue or new safety mandate. Usually, the first thing that happens is an assessment of what the problem is and if anyone is at risk. If there are specific issues identified, either with safety protocols or how the workers are following them, then re-training of the individuals or the entire institute is undertaken. If there are mechanical problems with the facility, such as with the air handling systems, decontamination machinery, such as autoclaves or other methods to decontaminate instruments or other equipment, then those need to be fixed. Once any urgent issues are handled, it is in the best interest of the institute to provide more information on what led to the stand-down. Absent that, it is difficult to make a true assessment of public risk and also to reduce speculation as to the actual cause.
A stand-down can cause significant disruption to ongoing experiments, especially if they include work with animals that have received a vaccine or that have been infected with a specific pathogen. The longer a stand-down lasts, the more damaging the disruption can be. Therefore, the key is to get to the root of the problem, fix it, restore the public trust and resume the important work as soon as feasible.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

RFK Jr. names 8 new members of vax advisory panel
RFK Jr. names 8 new members of vax advisory panel

Axios

timean hour ago

  • Axios

RFK Jr. names 8 new members of vax advisory panel

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy on Tuesday named eight new members to serve on an influential federal vaccine advisory panel after firing all 17 of the committee's members. Why it matters: While Kennedy posted on X that the new appointees are committed to evidence-based medicine, several have a history of expressing anti-vaccine sentiment or voicing concerns about COVID-19 or mRNA vaccines. Some were also signers of the Great Barrington Declaration, a petition authored by a group of scientists including current NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that advocated for allowing COVID to spread among young, healthy people to reach herd immunity faster. The approach drew fierce criticism from many experts. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices serves as an outside expert source to make recommendations to the Centers for Disease Control. Its recommendations can influence whether insurers cover vaccines. The new members are: Martin Kulldorf, a biostatistician who previously served on the Vaccine Safety Subgroup of ACIP and who was a co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration. He was fired from Harvard University for refusing COVID vaccination. He later claimed it was because he was " too pro-vaccine." Robert Malone, a physician-scientist and biochemist who made early contributions to mRNA vaccine technology. He was dubbed a "misinformation star" by the New York Times for spreading false information about COVID and mRNA shots, including claiming he was an inventor of the technology.. Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, who has previously held advisory roles for both CDC and FDA. He is also a signer of the Great Barrington Declaration and co-wrote an editorial with FDA Commissioner Marty Makary during the COVID pandemic arguing against masking for children. Retsef Levi, a professor of operations research at MIT. Levi has been a critic of mRNA vaccines, posting on social media in 2023 that "we have to stop giving them immediately." Vicky Pebsworth, a long-time nurse with a Ph.D. in public health. She previously served on the FDA's Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee and on the National Vaccine Advisory Committee's vaccine safety working group for the H1N1 vaccine. As of 2022, Pebsworth served on the board of the National Vaccine Information Center, an anti-vaccine group. She's spoken publicly about her son experiencing long-term health issues following vaccines at 15 months old. Joseph Hibbeln, a psychiatrist and neuroscientist who previously worked at the NIH for many years. He primarily studies nutrition and brain health. Michael Ross, a clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at George Washington University and Virginia Commonwealth University. James Pagano, an emergency medicine physician licensed in Florida and California. The other side: The announcement immediately stoked fears from some public health experts that the committee selections are overly skeptical of vaccines. "It's entirely possible that some of these people may be completely non-problematic," Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at the Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization at the University of Saskatchewan. However, others are "unbelievably anti-vax people. They are 100% not going to approach this in good faith."

OSU falls victim to budget cuts, putting a damper on scientific research
OSU falls victim to budget cuts, putting a damper on scientific research

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

OSU falls victim to budget cuts, putting a damper on scientific research

PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — The awarding of an OSU microfluidics research fund of $45 million has been called off by the Trump administration, leaving researchers fumbling for options. Microfluidics, the scientific study of the behavior of liquid on a microscopic level, is a recently established field and is hoped to aid in the medical realm as well as the manufacturing of semiconductors, a partially conductive component of many day-to-day electronic devices. The grant's cancellation has been a source of upset for researchers, but OSU is already looking ahead to future opportunities. Anti-ICE protests escalate outside Southwest Portland facility 'While we are disappointed in the notification of the EDA award cancellation for CorMic [Corvallis Microfluidics Tech Hub], we fully intend to participate in the EDA's next Notice of Funding Opportunity and remain well positioned to further national security interests as a global leader in microfluidics for semiconductor manufacturing, ' Tom Weller, Gaulke Professor and Head said. 'Oregon State University will continue to work alongside HP and other partners to further the commercialization of new microfluidics-connected technologies for semiconductor manufacturing, biotechnology, and advanced materials manufacturing.' This is not an isolated incident, with Trump having attempted to cut billions in allocated federal funding to scientific research since the beginning of his current term. White House spokesperson Kush Desai said, 'The Trump administration is spending its first few months reviewing the previous administration's projects, identifying waste, and realigning our research spending to match the American people's priorities and continue our innovative dominance.' Universities are getting hit with the full force of these budget cuts, with biomedical research being classified as 'waste.' Just in February, the National Institutes of Health proposed cutting billions of dollars to OHSU research looking at cancer and heart disease, among other afflictions. These cuts were immediately met with lawsuits from, but not limited to, the Association of American Universities and 22 state attorneys general. These lawsuits are still in progress. The Association of American Universities' lawsuit called the NIH cuts 'flagrantly unlawful' and expressed concern that 'our country will lose its status as the destination for solving the world's biggest health problems.' Scientists of the NIH itself have begun to speak out, publicly disagreeing with the institute's actions, claiming that the cuts 'undermine the NIH mission.' Cuts to scientific research are becoming a recurring source of contention as Trump's second term continues. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Planned NIH Cuts Threaten Americans' Health, Senators Charge in Tense Hearing
Planned NIH Cuts Threaten Americans' Health, Senators Charge in Tense Hearing

Scientific American

time3 hours ago

  • Scientific American

Planned NIH Cuts Threaten Americans' Health, Senators Charge in Tense Hearing

U.S. senators grilled National Institutes of Health (NIH) director Jayanta Bhattacharya at a hearing on 10 June about how his professed support for science squares with unprecedented funding delays and research-grant terminations at the agency this year, as well as enormous cuts that have been proposed for its 2026 budget. What would normally be a routine hearing about government spending was anything but: hundreds of scientists and advocates for Alzheimer's disease research packed into a cramped room on Capitol Hill to denounce US President Donald Trump's 2026 budget request, which calls for cutting the NIH's budget by about 40% and collapsing its 27 institutes and centres into 8. Such a cut 'would stop critical Alzheimer's research in its tracks,' Tonya Maurer, an advocate for the Alzheimer's Association, a non-profit group based in Chicago, Illinois, told Nature at the hearing. 'We've worked too damn hard to see this happen.' On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. Bhattacharya defended his leadership at the agency — the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world — noting that there is a 'need for reform at the NIH' and that to restore its reputation, the NIH 'cannot return to business as usual.' (The NIH has been accused by Trump and his Republican allies of funding 'woke' science and research on coronaviruses that they say could have sparked the COVID-19 pandemic.) To help fix the agency, Bhattacharya told the senators that he wants to focus on increasing reproducibility in biomedical research, upholding academic freedom and studying the cause of autism, which US health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr has pledged to find an answer to by September. Letters of dissent The hearing comes the day after more than 300 NIH staff members sent Bhattacharya a fiery letter decrying the mass termination of jobs at the agency and its cancellation of thousands of research projects on a growing list of topics that the Trump team has said are 'politicized', including those investigating the biology of COVID-19, the health of sexual and gender minorities (LGBT+) and reasons that people might be hesitant to receive a vaccine. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the staff members wrote. They named their letter the 'Bethesda Declaration,' after the Maryland community and Washington DC suburb where most of the NIH is located. The title also alludes to the 'Great Barrington Declaration', an open letter that Bhattacharya co-signed in October 2020 that argued against COVID-19 lockdowns except for the most vulnerable citizens, instead allowing for children and others to be infected so that 'herd immunity' could be reached ― a proposal that numerous scientists and NIH officials called dangerous at the time. At the hearing, Patty Murray, a Democratic senator from Washington, implored Bhattacharya to 'heed their warning,' and said that she expects that 'none of them face retaliation for raising those concerns.' Bhattacharya didn't respond to this comment at the hearing but said in a statement on 9 June that the Bethesda Declaration 'has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months,' but that 'respectful dissent in science is productive.' Gavin Yamey, a global-health researcher at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who signed the latest declaration, said, 'he can talk about freedom, but his own staff are decrying his censorship. How he's actually acting and what he says are not one in the same.' Taking ownership Several senators, including Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat from Wisconsin, questioned who was in charge at the NIH, given reports that billionaire Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency ordered agency employees to cut hundreds of specific grants. 'The changes in priorities, the move away from politicized science, I've made those decisions,' Bhattacharya responded. The mass terminations of awards at institutions such as Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 'that's joint with the administration', he said. (The Trump administration has alleged that universities such as Harvard have allowed discrimination, including antisemitism, on their campuses, and has cut or frozen research funding as a result.) The drastic 40% cut to the NIH's budget proposed for the fiscal year 2026 is not yet set in stone: the US Congress has the ultimate say over government spending, and during Trump's first presidency, when he proposed a huge cut to the biomedical agency in 2017, it instead approved a slight increase. Nevertheless, the composition of the body has changed significantly since then — far more of its members are now loyal to Trump. Comments made at the hearing by the senators weren't entirely divided down party lines. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine who voted to confirm both Bhattacharya and RFK Jr, said she was disturbed by the budget proposal. 'It would undo years of congressional investment in the NIH,' she said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store