|
BILLS, BILLS, BILLS
House and Senate Pass S.3880, the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act
“It is time to protect our researchers, their
institutions and those who do business with them
from the dangerous tactics of [animal rights]
extremists,” declared Leo Furcht, M.D., FASEB
President in a September 20th letter addressed
to the
Senate Judiciary committee. The letter
was in support of S.3880, the Animal Enterprise
Terrorism Act (AETA), which increased
protections for animal research facilities and
their employees targeted by animal rights (AR)
extremists. On September 30th, the last day of
their Congressional session before November’s
election, the Senate passed S. 3880 by unanimous
consent, a move
lauded by FASEB. For some time, the bill
appeared stalled in the House Judiciary
committee, despite ongoing bipartisan
negotiations with the Senate sponsors of the
Act. FASEB sent
letters to the House Judiciary
committee, urging them to move the bill towards
passage. Following the election, House
leadership announced the bill would be brought
forward for a vote and FASEB quickly contacted
all members of the House strongly supporting the
bill. On November 13th, during the lame duck
session, the AETA was passed by the House of
Representatives. This represents a
tremendous victory for the animal
research community.
FASEB has long supported the AETA and in fact
helped pass its predecessor, the Animal
Enterprise Protection Act, which was signed into
law in August, 1992. Unfortunately, this law
proved inadequate: while it covered physical
property damage to animal facilities, it did not
cover disruption caused by threats or harassment
campaigns launched against employees and their
families. AR extremists have become infamous for
causing economic damage by attacking not just
the animal facility itself, but all associated
businesses (i.e., accountants, banks, insurance
brokers), as well. The AETA would extend
protections to these secondary or tertiary
targets, increase the penalties for attacking
animal enterprises, and provide law enforcement
with the statutory tools needed to prosecute
coordinated harassment campaigns or threats made
across state lines. It is expected that the bill
will be signed into law by President Bush.
TOP OF PAGE
FASEB NEWS
FASEB, AAMC Issue Statement on
Postdoctoral Benefits
The Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology (FASEB) and the Association
of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) issued a
joint statement asserting that
postdoctoral researchers must have funding for
and access to comprehensive health care
coverage.
TOP OF PAGE
POLICY ISSUE IN DEPTH:
BIOSECURITY
Biosecurity Board Recommendations May
Affect Future Biomedical Research
The National Science Advisory Board on
Biosecurity (NSABB) is beginning to generate and
share products that could ultimately impact
federally funded scientists. NSABB was formed in
early 2005 to develop federal regulations and
review processes related to dual use biological
research. The term ‘dual use’ refers to research
whose purpose is benign or beneficial, but whose
misuse could cause harm. Concern about dual use
research was raised following a 2004 report by
the National Academies titled, Biotechnology
Research in an Age of Terrorism: Confronting the
Dual Use Dilemma? Officially administered
through the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH)
Office of Biotechnology Activities, NSABB
comprises 25 voting members with expertise in
science, biosecurity, biodefense,
pharmaceuticals, and / or law, as well as 18
ex-officio members representing various federal
departments and agencies.
Over the course of the past two years, NSABB has
been meeting biannually and conducting its work
primarily through working groups. The groups
have been developing criteria for identifying
and evaluating dual use research, generating
communication strategies related to dual use
research, exploring the use of codes of conduct
for life sciences, and beginning to outline a
regulatory scheme for control of dual use
research. More recent working group projects
include outreach to the international research
and policy community and the regulation of
synthetic genomics. NSABB has been actively
seeking engagement with the broader scientific
community on these issues, setting up
meetings with stakeholders and participating in
domestic and international scientific and
professional conferences. Their meetings are
open to the public, webcast live and all meeting
materials and agenda items are available online
at the NSABB website:
www.biosecurityboard.gov.
Among the NSABB draft products currently
available for viewing on their website are the
criteria for identifying dual use research and
evaluating whether it is of concern and in need
of further review. This review process is the
subject of the NSABB working group on oversight,
which is developing an oversight and review
framework similar to that of IACUCs, IRBs or the
RAC. In addition, NSABB has published
considerations for developing a code of conduct
for life sciences, which they see as a guideline
for use by scientific societies or institutions.
The synthetic genomics group has just issued a
report recommending potential modifications to
the select agents rules, as well as proposed
restrictions or regulations on suppliers of
synthetic DNA. Directed at both publishers and
scientists, the communications working group has
put forward several products and reports related
to publishing research with dual use
implications. Among NSABB’s charges, as a
federal advisory body, is to serve as a national
level of review and advice for the dissemination
of research results. Their first foray into this
function was the review of the publication of
the reconstructed 1918 influenza virus in
September 2005.
Why should biomedical researchers pay attention
to NSABB’s activities? NIH has made it very
clear that when NSABB’s products and
recommendations are final, they plan to
implement many of them as requisite for federal
funding. Given the interagency nature of NSABB,
it may be likely other federal science agencies
will follow suit. For example, the synthetic
genomics working group has suggested a number of
ways suppliers of synthetic DNA might prevent
aiding the construction or reconstruction of a
pathogenic organism, including referencing the
select agents taxonomy and keeping detailed
records. They have also recommended that federal
grantees be required to obtain synthetic DNA
only from those suppliers complying with these
rules. Although many of the NSABB’s
recommendations are thoughtful, proactive, and
even sound policy, it is without doubt that if
implemented, they will affect life scientists.
FASEB has been following the activities of NSABB
very closely and in June, FASEB President Leo
Furcht, M.D. participated in a roundtable
discussion to provide input on NSABB’s criteria
for identifying dual use research. NSABB plans
on publishing all of its recommendations and
products, when final, in the federal register
for public comment. In the meantime, however,
nearly all of their documents are freely
available online for review and members of NSABB
seem eager to receive feedback from the
scientific community.
CONGRESSIONAL SCHEDULE
The House and Senate have recessed for the
Thanksgiving Holiday, and plan to resume the
lame-duck session of Congress on December 4,
2006.
TOP OF PAGE
PAGE 1 |
PAGE 2
GO BACK TO NOV 17,
WASHINGTON UPDATE |
