Hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Germs, Viruses and Secrets
Interview
Hearing of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce- Germs, Viruses, and Secrets: The Silent Proliferation of Bio-Laboratories in the United States
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
REP. JAY INSLEE (D-WA): Thank you. Is there evidence that the anthrax attack on the Senate was essentially a way to provoke this inquiry we're having in this hearing? Was that the effort? Is there any evidence to suggest that, or not?
MR. RHODES: I -- we have seen no evidence to support that hypothesis.
REP. INSLEE: Well, I guess probably -- maybe it wouldn't make a difference. We've got an issue; we've got to deal with it, I suppose, in any event.
I've been told that there was a proposed study by NIH about the risks associated with proliferation of labs and the like that was to be done. We haven't seen it yet. Have you seen an NIH assessment of this issue?
MR. RHODES: No, we have not seen that.
REP. INSLEE: Is there anything forthcoming from them that you're aware of, or not?
MR. RHODES: We don't know of anything, sir.
REP. INSLEE: Okay. When we -- if we do develop some more uniform protocol for oversight of these labs, I assume there will be some issue about the military aspect of this, and it's always difficult when you try to blend oversight of civilian and military operations. The military has concerns about that for understandable reasons.
MR. RHODES: Yes.
REP. INSLEE: How would we go about having a consistent oversight when we've got a military operation that I would assume would be part of that?
MR. RHODES: Well, that's one of the models that we're looking at in the U.K. because both DEFRA as well as the Health Safety Executive have oversight of both civilian and military. They have the Ministry of Defense Laboratories under their oversight. So we will look into that and be able to report it out.
MR. SHARMA: CDC also -- you know, if the military labs are working with select agents, they also have to be registered with CDC. And CDC does provide the same oversight as they provide to other civilian institutions.
REP. INSLEE: Okay. You mentioned that some of these existing requirements apply only if a facility is receiving federal money. Is it likely to have more of this work done in areas where there is not federal money? We have the situation of stem cells right now that -- we're having a proliferation of labs that -- some not taking federal money just so they can continue the stem cell research, because of the ridiculous restrictions we have on federal funding. Are we going to see more strictly privately funded labs here, that if we do have requirements, it should apply to everyone, not just those who are receiving federal money?
MR. RHODES: We may. One of the problems in trying to answer your question is that I have to have some baseline of data, and because privately funded labs, if they aren't using select agents or aren't federally funded, we don't know about them, then I can't even speculate on where that would go.
REP. INSLEE: Do you think we need some regulatory process for all labs, federally or non-federally funded, even whether or not they use these specific agents, so the risks associated with certain activities we're not picking up in that system?
MR. RHODES: Yes, there are, there are agents that are not on the select agent list and they have grave consequences as well; and whether regulation is direct regulation or not or whether it's just that we need to know where they are. I mean, right now we don't even know where they are. We don't know what's being done and we don't know who's doing it. And from my standpoint, and my colleagues as well as a lot of safety professionals and security professionals, including our own Federal Bureau of Investigation and our own intelligence community, that's a worrisome subject.
REP. INSLEE: You're not alone. We should do something. Thank you.
MR. RHODES: Thank you.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source