Posted on Sat, Oct. 17, 2009

e-mail	print	RSS	reprint
AIM	Digg it	del.icio.us	Facebook

Risk assessment may slow biolab

By David Klepper

Eagle Topeka bureau

TOPEKA — Kansas' long quest to house the nation's premier animal disease research facility seemed triumphant this week when the U.S. House approved $32 million to start construction.

But there's a hitch.

Before all of that money can be spent on the $450 million facility that would be located in Manhattan, the Department of Homeland Security must conduct a risk assessment to ensure that the lab won't threaten livestock or humans.

The assessment will focus on whether the facility — which will handle some of the world's deadliest germs — could, either accidentally or through an act of terrorism, leak the germs it's charged with studying. The research is now done at an aging plant off Long Island, N.Y.

Kansas officials shrug off the assessment, insisting that it won't slow down or derail the project. A spokeswoman for Sen. Pat Roberts said that the studies had been expected. Kansas underwent similar reviews before it was selected for the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility.

Gov. Mark Parkinson expects the studies to be completed in time to break ground on the lab next summer. But should the test raise questions about the lab's safety, Kansas could find its winning pitch in jeopardy.

Opponents to the Kansas location welcome the assessment.

Tom Manney, chairman of the group No NBAF in Kansas, said that if done correctly, the review should raise questions about the safety of the research anywhere in the continental United States. Manney is a retired Kansas State University biophysics professor and the former chairman of the campus biosafety committee.

"We are not sold on the assurances that it's safe," he said. "Particularly in the case of foot-and-mouth disease. This whole thing has been so oversold in Kansas."

A government report last summer suggested the Department of Homeland Security didn't adequately consider the threat of accidental release of foot-and-mouth disease. That report is one of the reasons lawmakers in Washington insisted on the risk assessment.

But as a Texas lawsuit earlier this year showed, other states that wanted the lab have been slow to give up the fight. Texas or another jilted state could seize on the safety assessment's outcome, should it cast doubt on Kansas as a suitable location.

The Texas lawsuit, filed by a bioscience consortium, alleged that Kansas' reputation for tornadoes makes it a poor choice for a biohazard laboratory. It was thrown out by a judge over the summer, and the consortium has yet to appeal.

"We would not be surprised if they try to appeal or if other lawmakers raise more questions," said Parkinson spokesman Seth Bundy.

Reach David Klepper at 785-354-1388 or dklepper@kcstar.com.

     Showing: Oldest first Newest first Most-recommended first Least-recommended first

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.CommentBody@

@Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@