White House announces review process for risky virus studies

first_imgFederal officials today released a plan to help U.S. agencies decide whether to fund controversial studies that make viruses more dangerous. The guidance may finally bring an end to a moratorium that has kept a handful of experiments funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on hold for more than 2 years.The policy from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) essentially follows recommendations from last May from an advisory committee that attempted to define the riskiest experiments and spell out when they should be funded. Both critics and supporters of these hotly debated studies welcomed the policy, which some feared would languish if left to the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump. But some are reserving judgment until they see the results of the reviews.Although the new guidance provides no timelines, HHS is working to put the review process in place “as quickly as possible,” said an agency spokesperson on background. The agency says that “any projects that are determined suitable to proceed will do so with appropriate risk mitigation measures in place.” Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Emailcenter_img Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Concerns about so-called “gain-of-function” (GOF) virus studies—which make viruses more transmissible in humans or able to cause sickness or death—ignited 6 years ago when two virologists revealed that they had tweaked the deadly H5N1 avian influenza to make it spread more easily in mammals. Although meant to help experts prepare for pandemics, some worried that these studies could result in a lab escape of a deadly humanmade virus. Scientists themselves briefly halted, then resumed the H5N1 studies.Then more papers on GOF experiments, as well as accidents at some U.S. pathogen labs, prompted U.S. officials in October 2014 to impose a top-down moratorium. HHS “paused” funding for 18 GOF projects on influenza, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and severe acute respiratory syndrome viruses funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). (Some were later exempted, but seven flu studies and three MERS projects remain on hold, NIH says.)The new policy aligns with recommendations made last May by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), with a few tweaks. It covers research that creates “potential pandemic pathogens” or PPPs, rather than adopting NSABB’s term, GOF research of concern. Agencies will decide whether a proposed study involves an “enhanced” PPP by looking at whether the resulting pathogen is “likely” to be highly transmissible and capable of wide and uncontrollable spread in humans, highly virulent, and likely to cause significant sickness and deaths.Projects involving enhanced pathogens that meet this definition will then be reviewed using eight criteria, such as whether the project is scientifically justified and the benefits outweigh the risks. The report specifically exempts from the reviews certain enhanced PPP studies, such as routine flu surveillance (which involves characterizing viruses found circulating in nature) and the development of high-growth flu strains for vaccines.Critics have long complained that HHS officials should not be involved in reviewing GOF research that the agency funds because it presents a conflict of interest. The new policy says that agencies “are encouraged to vest oversight for their enhanced PPP review mechanisms in offices that do not report to the head of the agency component” that would fund the research. The HHS spokesperson said that experts from both HHS and other U.S. departments will conduct the reviews.Harvard University epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch, a longtime critic of GOF studies, says: “I will be watching to see … whether the reviews are robust and free of conflicts of interest real or perceived.”Virologist Ronald Fouchier of Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, who has H5N1 GOF studies on hold, says he is glad to see the OSTP policy. He is “positive that our projects will be reviewed favorably once more … under the new process, and that we can all continue our important work shortly, with negligible risks,” he said.OSTP also says that NSABB, an advisory group that has no regulatory authority and has struggled at times to address concerns about risky research, is still needed to offer feedback on HHS’s enhanced PPP review process and to provide other policy advice. David Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, says he thinks NSABB, which is staffed by NIH, should be moved outside of HHS to avoid conflicts of interest. “The location of its ‘home’ is very important,” Relman says.last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *