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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways
National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya faced questions from senators during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday, as the federal government agency has taken hits to its staffing levels and grant-making ability since under President Trump. Senators focused on the Trump administration's requested 2026 budget, which calls for cutting NIH's funding by $18 billion from 2025 levels. That roughly 40 percent reduction means 1,800 fewer new grants would be awarded and funded through the NIH and would impact many current grants, according to STAT. The budget also details Trump administration plans to restructure the agency and consolidate its 27 institutes into eight. Congress has the final say on how federal dollars are allocated, so the final NIH budget could look different. Here are four takeaways from the hearing: National Institutes of Health grant awards have plummeted since Trump returned to the White House in late January. One analysis found that the NIH has issued $2.3 billion less in new grant funds between January and April of this year than it did during that same time in 2024. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) questioned Bhattacharya about the drop in grant funding and asked who was behind the decision to terminate or withhold funding. Bhattacharya, at first, tried to sidestep the question but eventually took responsibility for the agency's grant cancellations. 'There [have been] changes in priorities for the NIH, to move away from politicized science. I've made those decisions,' he said. 'Decisions regarding, for instance, Harvard and some other institutions, that's joint with the administration.' The NIH has canceled $9.5 billion worth of funding through 2,100 research grants since January and another $2.6 billion in contracts supporting clinical trials, according to a recent letter signed by more than 2,000 NIH scientists condemning the Trump administration's research cuts. Democratic Senators hammered Bhattacharya over the administration's desire to greatly reduce the NIH's spending. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill) noted that research in his home state has taken a hit and that Northwestern University has not 'received a penny in NIH grants in 11 weeks.' 'I'm very hopeful that a resolution can be made with the universities where those decisions have been made,' Bhattacharya said. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) questioned Bhattacharya over the NIH's decision to impose a 15 percent cap on indirect costs in grant research. Bhattacharya said that he could not speak directly to the cap since it is subject to litigation. Instead, he spoke to how changes in the NIH's grant funding process are an opportunity to ensure that funds are more broadly distributed across the country's research institutions. He argued that the agency's research funding 'very concentrated' with 20 universities receive 60 percent to 65 percent of NIH's funding. 'It's absolutely vital that the NIH's investments are geographically dispersed,' he said. 'I would love to work with Congress to think of ways to make NIH's investment in scientific research more geographically dispersed.' Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) pushed Bhattacharya to answer long-standing questions about the consequences of the Trump administration's changes to the NIH, including just how many staff members have been terminated or left the agency amid threats of future layoffs. Murray also asked the director just how many clinical trials have been impacted by the NIH's grant terminations or pauses and how many fewer clinical trials the agency would be able to fund next year if the proposed budget were approved. Bhattacharya said he could not answer either question but pledged to send a response to Murray's office by the end of the day. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump administration vs. mRNA vaccines
The Big Story President Trump once heralded the speedy development of an mRNA vaccine, but his new administration is casting doubts and fostering speculation over their use. © AP The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in late May canceled $766 million awarded to Moderna through the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) to develop a potential mRNA vaccine for bird flu. This came soon after HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced COVID-19 mRNA vaccines would no longer be recommended for children and pregnant women, though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) kept the shot on its schedule of childhood vaccinations. The vaccines marked a breakthrough in medical technology, drastically reducing the timeline for development of targeted vaccines and even showing promise in cancer research. Trump called mRNA the 'gold standard' when he rolled out the first COVID-19 vaccines. In remarks in December 2020, the same month the first COVID-19 vaccines were deployed, Trump praised Operation Warp Speed's ability to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at a 'breakneck speed,' adding, 'the gold standard vaccine has been done in less than nine months.' According to Joseph Varon, president and chief medical officer of the Independent Medical Alliance, the concerns for mRNA vaccine skeptics are the expedited timeline and the conditions in which the COVID-19 vaccine was approved. 'The biggest concern is that this rushed treatment still remains in use, even under an Emergency Use Authorization in some cases. It needs to be sent back through proper studies and vetting,' Varon told The Hill. In a move that could prevent future mRNA vaccines from receiving approval, Kennedy on Tuesday announced he was removing every member of the independent panel advising the CDC on vaccines. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he wrote, 'A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.' Welcome to The Hill's Health Care newsletter, we're Nathaniel Weixel, Joseph Choi and Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech — every week we follow the latest moves on how Washington impacts your health. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will be impacting the health care sector this week and beyond: Senators grill NIH director in budget hearing: 4 takeaways National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya faced questions from senators during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing Tuesday, as the federal government agency has taken hits to its staffing levels and grant-making ability since under President Trump. Senators focused on the Trump administration's requested 2026 budget, which calls for cutting NIH's funding by $18 billion from 2025 levels. … States sue 23andMe over genetic data sales More than two dozen states, along with the District of Columbia, are suing biotechnology company 23andMe over plans to auction off personal genetic information without their customers' knowledge or consent. 'The Pitt' actor Noah Wyle to make push for health care workers at Capitol Noah Wyle is heading to the pit of political power, with a visit to Capitol Hill to push for funding for programs aimed at improving mental health services for health care workers. 'The Pitt' and former 'ER' star will touch down in Washington on Thursday to lead a panel discussion at the Cannon House Office Building focused on the 'daily mental health, financial, and bureaucratic challenges for … In Other News Branch out with a different read: Collins calls Kennedy's firing of vaccine experts 'excessive' Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) on Monday called Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s firing of all 17 experts on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) vaccine panel 'excessive,' but she cautioned she needs to learn more about the decision. Kennedy announced the decision in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, catching many GOP lawmakers by surprise. 'I did not know that that had happened,' … Around the Nation Local and state headlines on health care: What We're Reading Health news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Most read stories on The Hill right now: Judge declines to block Trump's Corporation for Public Broadcasting firings but allows board members to stay Correction: A previous version of this article gave incorrect names of the fired CPB board members. They are Laura Ross, Diane Kaplan and Thomas Rothman. … Read more Newsom asks judge for emergency intervention in Trump troop deployment in LA California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) asked a federal judge to immediately intervene on Tuesday to limit President Trump's deployment of the National … Read more You're all caught up. See you tomorrow! Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here


New York Times
4 hours ago
- New York Times
Democrats Grill N.I.H. Leader on Cuts: Who Is Calling the Shots?
As the Trump administration clamped down on the country's medical research funding apparatus in recent months, scientists and administrators at the National Institutes of Health often privately wondered how much autonomy the agency's director, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, had. After all, the Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk's signature cost-cutting project, helped drive decisions to cancel or delay research grants. Other projects fell victim to President Trump's face-off with universities over antisemitism. But given an opportunity before a Senate panel on Tuesday to dispel suspicions about who wields influence at the N.I.H., Dr. Bhattacharya did little to claim ownership of perhaps the rockiest period in the agency's many decades of funding research institutions. Decisions to freeze grant payments to Northwestern University 'happened before I got into office,' Dr. Bhattacharya told the panel, members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. He repeatedly said a proposal to shrink the N.I.H. budget by $18 billion — nearly 40 percent — was 'a collaboration between Congress and the administration' and declined to talk in detail about how the cuts would affect the agency. And pressed on an effort to curtail funding to universities for research overhead expenses — a cost-cutting move that is baked into the administration's 2026 budget proposal — Dr. Bhattacharya said, 'I don't want to get into that,' citing ongoing litigation. Several Democrats on the committee said they were confused about who was pulling the strings at the agency. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.