I am tempted to down vote your response but have held off because I’m not able to get a good confirmation or answer to the questions I have. That said, my concerns with the response are:
Just because private labs don’t have to report to NIH that none, or even many, don’t.
A quick search seems to suggest multiple federal agencies are involved with lab safety at various levels.
It’s not clear if your complaint is really more about a particular database (NIH’s) that overall reporting of lab accidents Or perhaps put differently, about some consolidation of reporting databases.
Your hypothetical starts with the assumption that no reporting of accidents by private labs exists. It is not clear that is true.
Your reference to the Gates Foundation seems like it may be arguing from a special case and then attempting to generalize in appropriately.
Additionally it appears the lead off incident in The Intercept’s story is not actually a good example:
The needle pierced through both sets of gloves, but the student saw no blood, so she washed her hands, removed her safety equipment, and left the lab without telling anyone what had happened. Four days later, she ran a fever, and her body ached and convulsed in chills.
That is not a problem with reporting requirements (regardless of to which authority) but failing to follow reporting requirements. More regulation does not solve that problem.
Note, none of this is to say improvements are not possible, or perhaps even needed. But starting from an incomplete map sees like a good way to run the ship aground.
Your hypothetical starts with the assumption that no reporting of accidents by private labs exists. It is not clear that is true.
The intercept article writes “Unless they work with the most dangerous pathogens, biolabs don’t have to register with the U.S. government. As a result, there is little visibility into the biosafety of experiments carried out by private companies or foundations.”
Here “most dangerous pathogens” leaves out illnesses like the measles virus that still can do a lot of damage to human, especially when modified.
This claim might be true or false. I do believe that the people at the intercept tried to get their hands on all the reports they could find and that there was a lack of access to those from private companies or foundations.
Do you think that private companies or foundations do those reports and if so, where do you think they are filled and why can’t the people from the Intercept access them?
That is not a problem with reporting requirements (regardless of to which authority) but failing to follow reporting requirements. More regulation does not solve that problem.
The problem of following reporting requirements is one of the incentives. Currently, the NIH sets some incentives by expecting people who receive grants to follow the reporting requirements.
I do agree that currently, the NIH does not punish their grantees enough for failing their reporting requirements.
Ideally, I think there would also be criminal liability for biosafety officers who fail to report incidents. Creating criminal liability is something you can do with regulation.
I am tempted to down vote your response but have held off because I’m not able to get a good confirmation or answer to the questions I have. That said, my concerns with the response are:
Just because private labs don’t have to report to NIH that none, or even many, don’t.
A quick search seems to suggest multiple federal agencies are involved with lab safety at various levels.
It’s not clear if your complaint is really more about a particular database (NIH’s) that overall reporting of lab accidents Or perhaps put differently, about some consolidation of reporting databases.
Your hypothetical starts with the assumption that no reporting of accidents by private labs exists. It is not clear that is true.
Your reference to the Gates Foundation seems like it may be arguing from a special case and then attempting to generalize in appropriately.
Additionally it appears the lead off incident in The Intercept’s story is not actually a good example:
That is not a problem with reporting requirements (regardless of to which authority) but failing to follow reporting requirements. More regulation does not solve that problem.
Note, none of this is to say improvements are not possible, or perhaps even needed. But starting from an incomplete map sees like a good way to run the ship aground.
The intercept article writes “Unless they work with the most dangerous pathogens, biolabs don’t have to register with the U.S. government. As a result, there is little visibility into the biosafety of experiments carried out by private companies or foundations.”
Here “most dangerous pathogens” leaves out illnesses like the measles virus that still can do a lot of damage to human, especially when modified.
This claim might be true or false. I do believe that the people at the intercept tried to get their hands on all the reports they could find and that there was a lack of access to those from private companies or foundations.
Do you think that private companies or foundations do those reports and if so, where do you think they are filled and why can’t the people from the Intercept access them?
The problem of following reporting requirements is one of the incentives. Currently, the NIH sets some incentives by expecting people who receive grants to follow the reporting requirements.
I do agree that currently, the NIH does not punish their grantees enough for failing their reporting requirements.
Ideally, I think there would also be criminal liability for biosafety officers who fail to report incidents. Creating criminal liability is something you can do with regulation.