In the world there are 59 research laboratories authorized to handle the most dangerous pathogens known to science: lethal viruses and bacteria, capable of creating health catastrophes like the one we are experiencing with Covid 19. On paper, the structures in which they are studied have the most high levels of biosecurity possible, they have staff trained for every possible eventuality, and state-of-the-art technological and procedural precautions, to ensure that none of these invisible killers can escape and sow panic in the population.
Natural or created in the laboratory: the mystery of the origins of Covid
by Daniele Banfi
On paper, we said, because certifying the appropriateness of the structures and the preparation of the staff is not enough. The nations hosting the laboratories must also ensure that they are able to prevent, manage and promptly resolve any problems that may arise. And in this sense, there is still a lot of work to be done: as revealed by an article published in The Conversation by two international biosecurity experts, only a quarter of the 23 countries that have a laboratory with biosafety level 4, the highest, can be considered truly safe.
Coronavirus, the mystery of the rediscovered sequences. The geneticist: “Few to get answers”
by Donatella Zorzetto
A problem that shows its consequences in recent months, with the controversies and mutual exchanges of accusations on the real origin of Covid 19 that are poisoning relations between China and the United States. It does not matter whether or not the hypothesis of a laboratory error is credible, an accidental contagion in the Wuhan Institute of Virology that would have let one of the coronaviruses studied in the facility escape. The very fact that this possibility is not easily filed away (and indeed, it is certainly destined to hold ground for months to come) shows that biosecurity should be a priority for all countries that want to carry out research of this type.
A Coronavirus epidemic in Asia. But twenty thousand years ago
by Tina Simoniello
“Biosafety Level 4, or Bsl4, laboratories are designed to work with pathogens that can cause serious disease in humans, that can be transmitted from person to person, and for which there are no vaccines or therapies,” he explains. Salute Gregory koblents, director of George Mason University’s Masters in Biodefence and co-author of the article published in The Conversation, together with the expert in Science and International Security Filippa Lentzos, of King’s College London. The laboratories in which these pathogens are studied, also called maximum containment laboratories, are designed with the highest levels of protection for researchers, both at an engineering level, for example with the use of biosecurity cabinets and wastewater sterilization systems. , and on a procedural level, with measures such as the obligation to change clothes before entering the laboratory and to take a shower before going out. “These are structures of the highest level – assures Koblents – but then if the laboratories are not subjected to sufficient external supervision and it is impossible to guarantee that the research carried out there is carried out with the highest possible levels of safety and responsibility”.
Virus origins, the geneticist: “All that data should be recoverable”
by Giuliano Aluffi
Here is the problem: only a fraction of the 23 countries that host a BSL 4 laboratory also possess the adequate capabilities for supervision and reaction in case of accidents. To assess the situation, Koblents and Lentzos referred to the Global Health Security Index, a project of the Nuclear Threat Initiative that maps the levels of biosecurity and bioprotection guaranteed by all nations of the world. “The Global Health Security Index uses many indicators to assess biosecurity, such as the presence of national laws and regulations on the subject, and government agencies dedicated to the supervision of these activities”, explains the American expert. “Looking at the map you immediately notice that only a quarter of the countries with BSL 4 laboratories are classified as having a high level of biosecurity, and a quarter even at the lowest level of biosecurity. It would be expected that countries with state-of-the-art biomedical research facilities they also guarantee the utmost attention to safety, but this is not the case “.
The first form of life that cannot be attacked by viruses was created in the laboratory
It’s not all. Looking at the so-called “dual-use research”, that is scientific research that can have applications in both civil and war fields, such as “gain of function” studies in which pathogens are made more dangerous to study countermeasures in the event of epidemics , there are very few nations with regulations governing the field. Of the 23 surveyed by the two experts, only Australia, Canada and the United States have clear regulations on the topic; three others, Germany, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, have some form of oversight of this research; while for the other 17 they are not present, or it is not known.
How is it possible? “At the international level, there is no binding regulatory framework on biosecurity and bioprotection,” explains Koblents. “WHO publishes a manual on biosafety, but it is only a guideline document. There is also no international mechanism or body that monitors and evaluates the management of biological risks by nations or individual laboratories.”
There is therefore ample room for improvement, and Covid 19 has shown us how urgent interventions are: without an international regulatory framework and guarantees of transparency from national authorities, the surveillance of maximum security laboratories becomes a matter of trust, more than of certainties. There is no evidence, of course, that Sars-Cov-2 was born in a Chinese laboratory, but the very fact that the doubt exists shows that we are faced with a problem: even if this was not the case, it could be the next pandemic. to be born by the hand of man.
Especially since in response to Covid 19, many sampling programs for potential zoonotic viruses have received new life. Projects such as the American Predict program, which since 2005 has been funded with over 200 million dollars and has led to the discovery of 1,200 new animal viruses with pandemic potential, or the Global Virome Project, which aims to raise funds for 1.2 billion dollars to map most viruses present in the animal kingdom. According to many experts, they are a fundamental pillar of global efforts to prevent a new pandemic, but at the same time, it is undeniable that they also represent a potential source of contagion and spread for new potentially catastrophic zonnotic viruses.
“Large-scale sampling of new viruses actually creates biosecurity risks, both in the field and in the laboratory,” concludes Koblents. “I think this type of bio-surveillance still has an important role to play in the defense of global health, but it is imperative that research be conducted with even greater precautions than those used to date, to ensure that researchers are not exposed to the risk. of infection and then transmit a new virus to the population. For example, it could be enhanced monitoring of the health of researchers, provide for mandatory quarantine in case of suspected exposure to a potential pathogen, or require the handling of new viruses only in facilities with levels of biosecurity of at least 3, before we are satisfied that they pose no health risk. I think that laboratories, governments and international institutions will need to become more proactive in monitoring this type of research, to ensure that the benefits they bring outweigh the risks. and that all adequate safety measures are always present “.
.