Boston is set this week to debate whether to ban a new, downtown biodefense laboratory from studying some of the world’s deadliest disease agents.
A Wednesday city council hearing is expected to consider a proposed citywide prohibition on so-called “Biosafety Level 4” research, which can involve diseases for which there are no known cures. The initiative marks the latest local pushback against Boston University’s effort to pursue the sensitive pathogen studies at its recently completed National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories.
In his draft ordinance, Councilor Charles Yancey said conducting such research at the site could enable an agent such as Ebola or Marburg to escape into the city, either by accident or deliberate action.
“I am not convinced we really need to invite that possibility to the city of Boston,” Yancey told the Boston Globe in remarks published in a Sunday editorial.
Boston University has criticized the rationale behind the council measure, arguing that the laboratory’s security is stringent and any sensitive research justified by the need to prepare against lethal disease agents.
A four-year risk study “considered hundreds of possible scenarios that could potentially result in an exposure of a worker to a pathogen, or the release of a biological agent [and] demonstrated conclusively that BSL-4 laboratories — built with multiple backup redundancies for its operations systems — are extremely safe,” the university said in a statement last month.
Sunday’s Globe editorial sides with the school, and argues that the site’s location would facilitate collaboration with experts throughout the region.
“It’s understandable why critics of the biolab might prefer that the research take place in an isolated facility … [but that] would impede scientists’ ability to learn from one another,” the newspaper said.
What We're Following See More »
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."
"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."
"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.
The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."