Citing fear of the purported COVID-19 lab leak theory, Kansas lawmakers have advanced a bill that would mandate greater public transparency from biosecurity research laboratories.
Supporters specifically cited labs in Manhattan at Kansas State University and the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, arguing that the public has a right to know about accidents. They fear an accident could lead to a disease outbreak or pandemic similar to the coronavirus.
Research officials argue that Senate Bill 441 would create duplicative regulations that offer no tangible benefits while having the potential to harm public trust.
“It felt important, considering what happened in Wuhan,” said Sen. Richard Hilderbrand, R-Baxter Springs. “I know I had received a lot of concerns about the laboratory at K-State, about the transparency and if they would know if something like that would happen here.”
Hilderbrand, who chairs the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee, said he started working with lobbyist Mitch DePriest on the bill before the legislative session started.
The sole proponent during a committee hearing last week was David Manheim, an Israel-based researcher on infectious diseases and global risk at 1Day Sooner with no connection to Kansas.
“The still unclear possibility that COVID-19 initially escaped from a laboratory overseas shows that certain types of laboratory work comes with potentially devastating risks,” Manheim said. “With the approaching opening of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Manhattan, this bill could not be more timely.”
Intelligence agencies haven’t been able to conclude whether the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 spread from wild animals to humans or leaked from a lab in China.
The bill would require detailed, public reporting of all laboratory accidents and near misses within a week of the event. The biological laboratories, which work with human pathogens and infectious diseases, are also encouraged to report “non-conformities” where a safety procedure wasn’t followed.
Sen. Tom Hawk, D-Manhattan, said the bill “undermines public trust and will jeopardize our sizeable investments” in laboratories. His district is home to NBAF and K-State’s Biosecurity Research Institute at Pat Roberts Hall.
“Only one out-of-state proponent advocated for this bill,” Hawk said. “Experts from K-State pointed out six major flaws.”
The Senate narrowly passed the bill in a 21-19 vote Wednesday.
Kansas State outlines opposition to ‘transparency’ bill
K-State officials have opposed the bill. Vice president for research David Rosowsky and associate vice present for research compliance Cheryl Doerr outlined their concerns in written testimony to the Senate committee.
The administrators said the bill would increase the regulatory burden in a way that “would likely impede research productivity and innovation without providing any meaningful oversight.” Federally funded researchers already spend an average of 42% of their time on administrative and compliance work, K-State officials said.
The bill has “unclear and inconsistent definitions” on what laboratories are affected, they said. Federal biosafety levels have NBAF as a BSL-4 and the K-State lab as a BSL-3, though it is unclear to what degree lower-level laboratories would be impacted.
The K-State officials argued the bill has a “lack of oversight, reporting clarity or enforcement” while also posing an increased risk of noncompliance.
“Fostering a culture of voluntarily reporting benefits everyone in an organization,” Rosowsky and Doerr said. “However, reporting near-miss accidents publicly could result in the reporting being regarded as punitive in nature, potentially encouraging individuals and researchers to not report the accident internally.”
They said the system works because researchers “can trust that they will not be publicly shamed for a minor or incidental accident.”
The bill threatens to decrease public trust, they said, due to “public misperceptions of risks” without appropriate context and explanation.
The bill would also duplicate other reporting efforts. K-State already is required to report to regulators at the Federal Select Agent Program, the NIH Office of Biotechnology and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, as well as an internal oversight board.
Federal regulators in 2014 issued a secret enforcement letter to K-State, later obtained by USA Today, alleging a “history of non-compliance” over four inspections in two years and a “systemic problem.”
University officials at the time said nearly all the violations stemmed from administrative paperwork issues that posed no safety threat and the letter reflected the government’s rigorous oversight. The issues were remedied within a year.
More:Secret sanctions revealed against university hosting $1.25 billion biolab
Committee debate
Manheim called the bill an “important effort to promote public health and safety in Kansas and around the world.”
He said most labs have “long-delayed and non-public reports” sent to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or Congress. He said public reporting would lead to improved biosafety.
“I’m confident that laboratories in the United States are already among the safest in the world for doing research,” Manheim said. “But by pushing for greater transparency with this bill, this can be made clearer to the public and to the world and Kansas can set an example for the country and for the rest of the world.”
Manheim said the legislation would require “minimal extra work” while balancing “the need for transparency with minimizing the burden on laboratories.”
In committee, Sen. Mike Thompson, R-Shawnee, said “transparency is a good thing” in light of “what’s happened in the last two years, and the lack of transparency from the NIH and the NIAID about what happened in the Wuhan lab.”
Sen. Pat Pattey, D-Kansas City, called the bill “total overreach.”
“It seems to be directed specifically towards the lab at K-State, which has tremendous oversight over that lab already,” she said.
“You can have all the oversight in the world,” Hilderbrand said. “But the transparency part and for the general public to have knowledge when there is a mishap, an accident, a spillage, a leakage or something like that. It is imperative that the general population understands what’s going on.
“Whether the origins (of COVID-19) are from a bat or from the Wuhan laboratory, I think that’s a good example of why we need transparency in biological laboratories.”
Hilderbrand said complaints of burdensome regulations is “just a buzzword to say we don’t want transparency.”
More:The real issue with the COVID-19 lab leak theory? The US isn’t spying on China like it used to
Senate debate
Hilderbrand indicated during Senate debate that the duplication of process is intentional.
“Instead of just reporting strictly to government, now you report to the people,” he said. “I do disagree that by having this information readily available for the citizens, it does not decrease public trust, it increases public trust.
“What I usually hear is a lot of mistrust in the government, and probably rightfully so. Any time you can put information into the hands of the citizens, I do not believe that it is confusing for them. I think it is important for them to understand what is going on.”
Hawk, the Manhattan senator, disagreed.
“This bill creates a sense of danger that is really not present,” he said. “I think it would harm us in terms of that public support we need. It will harm us in terms of saying to the businesses that want to locate around NBAF.”
Hawk said the “undue burden” in the bill discourages further investment in the state as businesses in the animal health science industry “may balk if they think we look like a state that is really not supporting this.”
“It is a real asset to our state, both economically and also in terms of protecting our food supply, our agriculture, our livestock and the potential diseases that are out there,” he said of NBAF.
Sen. Caryn Tyson, R-Parker, argued that NBAF is important to the state economy, but transparency is key to protecting agriculture from disease outbreaks. Sen. Alicia Straub, R-Ellinwood, concurred.
“We have not but to look on the other side of the world to see what happens when a virus escapes a lab,” Straub said. “It’s ironic that the same people who would quarantine healthy people would not just provide a simple public notice of transparency.”
K-State, USDA and KDHE respond
Kansas State University spokesperson Michelle Geering said in a Wednesday email that the school is monitoring the bill.
“The BRI has layers of security, from the outside gates and the technological firewall to the security codes and 24/7 video monitoring,” she said. “The BRI cybersecurity posture is robust, redundant, and is included in the federal inspections.”
All university research projects require approval from several regulatory agencies in addition to an internal oversight board, Geering said. Scientists and staff undergo safety training that includes emergency drills; annual recertification is required.
“NBAF considers it a high priority to openly communicate about its research and diagnostic mission while maintaining security measures for the facility,” Stephanie Jacques, a spokesperson for NBAF and the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service, said in an email. “We continue to participate in outreach events and develop our website and social media content to make sure the public can find answers easily to any questions or concerns.”
Leadership of the research facility have established relationships with community leaders, including those in local and state government. Quarterly meetings provide an opportunity to share information and address concerns.
Jacques said NBAF, which is gearing up to complete construction and commissioning in the coming months, will adhere to all applicable laws and regulations.
“While the NBAF team is still developing its incident response plan, we also are establishing ourselves as a high-reliability organization, or HRO,” she said. “These organizations encourage all employees to be mindful of operations, follow detailed protocol and address all potential for errors so we can be proactive in preventing major problems.”
Director of KDHE laboratories Myron Gunsalus, who leads a facility that would be affected by the bill, offered neutral testimony. He said he recognizes the need for transparency but suggested the bill’s reporting would be meaningless.
He said the bill would duplicate existing reporting requirements while also requiring “reporting of all accidents, incidents really, regardless of whether they are associated with any biological risk or exposure.”
“If you spilled a little bit of your reagent and you had to wipe it up,” he said, “even though everything else is already put away, you’d still need to be reporting.”
Jason Tidd is a statehouse reporter for the Topeka Capital-Journal. He can be reached by email at jtidd@gannett.com. Follow him on Twitter @Jason_Tidd.
Leave a Reply