Advisers call for greater NIH oversight of pathogens including coronavirus
Abigail Adcox
Video Embed
A group of scientists advising the National Institutes of Health finalized recommendations on Friday that the government should expand oversight of research on possible pandemic pathogens, a belated effort to raise scrutiny of the handling of dangerous pathogens such as COVID-19.
The recommendations, issued Friday by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, follow a watchdog report earlier this week that found the NIH had made significant errors in its oversight of grants to nonprofit group EcoHealth Alliance, which has been criticized for its collaboration with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China. The Government Accountability Office faulted the NIH for not tracking EcoHealth’s work more closely and for unclear policies for what research requires oversight.
FDA TO RELAX BLOOD DONATION RULES FOR GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN IN MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIPS
House Republicans have planned to hold additional hearings on oversight of virus research and into the origins of the pandemic, particularly looking into a theory that it was the result of a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity on Friday called on the government to expand the Department of Health and Human Services’s 2017 definition of “enhanced potential pandemic pathogens” to include not just lethal bacteria and viruses but also pathogens that are at least moderately transmissible and would be subject to governmental oversight, such as COVID-19.
“Overemphasis on pathogens that are both likely ‘highly’ transmissible and likely ‘highly’ virulent could result in overlooking some research involving the creation, transfer, or use of pathogens,” the draft report said.
The advisory group voted to approve the draft report with some modifications following a yearlong review of existing guidelines. The recommendations also called for “increased transparency” in the review and oversight processes to “engender public trust,” including sharing nonsensitive information with researchers, Congress, and the public.
“I think there are some legitimate, legitimate concerns about polarization, the degree of polarization around some of this research, and so I can see, you know, legitimate interests in when it comes to federal level review,” said member Alex John London, Clara L. West professor of ethics and philosophy and director of the Center for Ethics and Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. “But I think there’s got to be a way that the American public can, you know, sort of be reassured about the standards that have been applied, and the verdicts that have been made, the judgments that have been made about research that’s being conducted.”
Members of the scientific community expressed concerns during the meeting that increased oversight could lead to delays in research that is critical to address health threats.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Our work in the laboratory, starting with the founding of the CDC and the NIH, has always been to protect human health, and that’s why we do the work we do. People are not working in labs funded by NIH to design new and nefarious threats,” said Jeremy Kamil, an associate professor of microbiology and immunology at Louisiana State University Health Shreveport. “It needs to be well regulated, but we have to balance the risk of unintentional consequences of excessive regulation and make sure it’s not just performative. That it is actually serving a purpose and making people safer.”
The NIH and HHS are expected to review the recommendations and will have the final say if any policy changes are implemented and what those are.