[Updated (7/13/2012, 5:14 p.m.) with comment from the university.]
Kansas State University scored another victory on Friday in its bid to host a $1.1-billion high-security federal laboratory for studying food-related pathogens, winning a qualified endorsement in an independent scientific assessment requested by the Obama administration.
A study panel formed by the National Research Council concluded that the Kansas project, while imperfect, “includes all components of the ideal laboratory infrastructure in a single location and has been designed to meet the current and anticipated future needs” of the federal government.
The proposed National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility, or NBAF, would be the first in the United States and the fourth in the world for studying nonhuman animal diseases with a security rating of Level 4—the highest risk rating for handling biological threats.
The lab would replace an aging and increasingly inadequate facility on New York State’s Plum Island, and it’s been described by federal officials as critical to protecting the nation’s $165-billion animal-agriculture industry from infectious diseases. And for Kansas, the lab also would mean an estimated $3.5-billion in economic activity during its first 20 years of use.
Kansas won a nationwide competition in 2008 to host the Department of Homeland Security facility on land adjacent to the Kansas State campus, in Manhattan. But it then saw the project challenged on grounds of safety and cost. Kansas officials largely dealt with the safety issues during two previous rounds of study organized by the National Research Council, a federally chartered independent provider of scientific expertise, part of the National Academy of Sciences.
Then the Obama administration balked at the overall cost of the facility, and asked for a third assessment this year in a bid to be sure it hadn’t overlooked any cost-saving alternatives. The report on Friday should now persuade Congress and the White House to move ahead, Kansas lawmakers said.
“The NAS findings are crystal clear,” said Kansas’ two U.S. senators, Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, and its governor, Sam Brownback, all Republicans, in a joint statement. “Because the NAS study shows that the need for a facility like NBAF has increased over time, we call on DHS to move forward with the land transfer and for construction to begin immediately.”
Animals to Infect
Yet opponents, in Kansas and elsewhere, saw grounds to continue challenging the project. They include Thomas R. Manney, a retired professor of physics at Kansas State who helps lead an advocacy group, “No NBAF in Kansas.” The group has warned against placing such a lab in the middle of farm country, where an escaped pathogen would immediately find animals to infect.
The new focus on reducing the project’s cost as much as possible only raises the risk of a dangerous facility, Mr. Manney said. “It seems entirely possible that by the time the facility is put into operation, the risk and expense of placing that capability in the middle of cattle country will appear as yet even more foolish than the proposal does now,” he said.
Rep. Timothy H. Bishop, a Democrat of New York whose district includes the Plum Island facility, called the report further evidence that the government needed to keep studying its options. Mr. Bishop and other New York leaders have rejected the idea of building a Level 4 facility on Plum Island, but he has also fretted in the past about the loss of about 100 jobs at Plum Island once the lab closes.
“The National Research Council confirms that the vital research being performed today at Plum Island Animal Disease Research Center must continue as the Department of Homeland Security evaluates realistic options to meet the nation’s bio- and agro-security needs,” Mr. Bishop said in a written statement.
3 Options
This latest National Research Council panel consisted of 10 experts in agriculture and medicine led by Terry F. McElwain, a professor of pathology and executive director of the Washington Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, at Washington State University at Pullman.
The panel was asked to consider three choices: proceeding with the $1.1-billion NBAF lab, as planned, at Kansas State; pursuing a scaled-down alternative in which some of the less-risky research work would be done at other U.S. facilities; or reviving the 50-year-old facility at Plum Island, at the eastern end of New York’s Long Island, and leaving the federal government to rely on foreign labs for the most risky research work.
The panel rejected the last option, saying the age and condition of the Plum Island facility made it prohibitively expensive to maintain and upgrade, and warning against the uncertainties of relying on foreign labs. “Those countries have their own priorities,” Mr. McElwain said.
It gave mixed assessments of the other two options. The full project, it said, does have some drawbacks, including “substantial costs associated with construction, operation, and management,” and duplication of existing resources. Yet it also questioned the idea of a scaled-back project at Kansas State, agreeing it would take advantage of scientific expertise outside Kansas but saying it was uncertain how much money would actually be saved. “A thorough cost analysis really needs to be done,” Mr. McElwain said.
Obama-administration officials did not respond to requests for comment on the findings.
Kansas State sees the project as “a big deal” for the university, which would be likely to supply researchers and perhaps even students to work at the facility, said Ron W. Trewyn, the institution’s vice president for research.
The university has already cleared its own animal facilities from the 46-acre plot of state-owned land that would be used for the lab, and preliminary site work is under way, including the necessary realignment of utilities, Mr. Trewyn said. “This is a significant step forward” toward completing the project, he said of the National Research Council report.
Despite its uncertainties, the panel led by Mr. McElwain agreed that the need was pressing. An outbreak among American farm animals of one of the most dire threats, foot-and-mouth disease, could cause “tens of billions of dollars” in economic losses, Mr. McElwain said. The study of diseases in animals also could help prevent epidemics that could spread to people, he said.
Mr. McElwain said his panel had made no assessment of whether the pressure for cost savings, including the possibility of spreading work between the proposed new Kansas facility and other U.S. labs, would increase the risk that a dangerous pathogen might escape into the environment. “We did not consider risk,” he said. “It was not part of our statement of task at all.”
