top
US
US
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Safety Rules Can’t Keep Up With Biotech Industry- McClain's Case Exposes Industry Cover-up

by repost
The case of molecular biologist Pfizer biotech worker Becky McClain has exposed that biotech workers are under threat. For more information
go to http://www.workersmemorialday.org
640_mcclain__becky.jpg
Safety Rules Can’t Keep Up With Biotech Industry-Becky McClain's Case Exposes Industry Cover-up

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/business/28hazard.html?hp

May 27, 2010
Safety Rules Can’t Keep Up With Biotech Industry
By ANDREW POLLACK and DUFF WILSON
They are the highly trained, generally well-paid employees in the vanguard of American innovation: people who work in biotechnology labs. But the cutting edge can be a risky place to work.

The casualties include an Agriculture Department scientist who spent a month in a coma after being infected by the E. coli bacteria her colleagues were experimenting with.

Another scientist, working in a New Zealand lab while on leave from an American biotechnology company, lost both legs and an arm after being infected by meningococcal bacteria, the subject of her vaccine research.

Last September, a University of Chicago scientist died after apparently being infected by the focus of his research: the bacterium that causes plague.

Whether handling deadly pathogens for biowarfare research, harnessing viruses to do humankind’s bidding or genetically transforming cells to give them powers not found in nature, the estimated 232,000 employees in the nation’s most sophisticated biotechnology labs work amid imponderable hazards. And some critics say the modern biolab often has fewer federal safety regulations than a typical blue-collar factory.

Even the head of the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration acknowledges that his agency’s 20th-century rules have not yet caught up with the 21st-century biotech industry.

“Worker safety cannot be sacrificed on the altar of innovation,” said David Michaels, OSHA’s new director. “We have inadequate standards for workers exposed to infectious materials.”

The current OSHA rules governing laboratories, for example, were not written with genetic manipulation of viruses and bacteria in mind. “The OSHA laboratory standard deals with chemicals,” Mr. Michaels said. “It doesn’t deal with infectious agents.”

Earlier this month, as a first step toward possible new regulations, the agency issued a sweeping request for information on occupational risks from infectious agents, and for suggestions on how best to reduce them. The focus is mainly on hospital and other health care workers, but any rules are expected to also cover industry laboratory workers.

Some safety experts in the biotechnology industry argue that there is no big safety problem, and that workers are adequately protected by various voluntary guidelines on safe laboratory practices and by OSHA’s general rule that employers provide a safe workplace.

“The OSHA requirement applies to all industries, including the pharmaceutical industry,” said John H. Keene, a biosafety consultant to industry and former president of the American Biological Safety Association, a professional society for those involved in biolab safety.

But at least three trends are stoking concern among safety advocates. In the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks, the federal government stepped up research involving biowarfare threats, like anthrax, Ebola and many other of the world’s deadliest pathogens. Another factor is that the new techniques of so-called synthetic biology allow scientists to make wholesale genetic changes in organisms rather than just changing one or two genes, potentially creating new hazards. Just this month, the genome pioneer J. Craig Venter announced the creation of a bacterial cell containing totally synthetic DNA, which Dr. Venter described as the first species “whose parent is a computer.”

The third trend involves the shifting focus of the pharmaceuticals industry — potentially the largest source of new biotechnology jobs. Drug makers, responding to competition from cheap generic medications, are moving beyond the traditional business of making pills in chemical factories to focus instead on vaccines and biologic drugs that are made in vats of living cells.

There are currently few good statistics on biolab accidents. One study, reviewing incidents discussed in scientific journals from 1979 to 2004, counted 1,448 symptom-causing infections in biolabs, resulting in 36 deaths. About half the infections were in diagnostic laboratories, where patient blood or tissue samples are analyzed, and half in research laboratories.

But that may be a “substantial underestimation,” the study’s authors wrote, because many incidents are never made public. The study was done by two biosafety experts and published in the book “Biological Safety: Principles and Practices.”

A survey done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2006 found that the rate of workplace injury and illness in corporate scientific research laboratories was well below the average for all industries. The survey included labs in industries like information technology as well as biotechnology, and excluded labs handling the most dangerous pathogens.

Allegations about a more recent case came to light only through a lawsuit. It was filed against the drug giant Pfizer by Becky McClain, a former molecular biologist at the company’s largest research center, which employs 3,500 people in Groton, Conn.

Ms. McClain, now 52, says she has suffered bouts of temporary paralysis after being infected by a genetically engineered virus at the Groton lab. A jury last month awarded Ms. McClain $1.37 million, saying Pfizer had fired her for raising questions about laboratory safety.

Pfizer said it went to considerable effort to accommodate Ms. McClain and dismissed her for refusing to return to a safe workplace. The company also pointed out that OSHA had found that Ms. McClain was not fired for raising safety concerns. But the jury ruled otherwise, saying Ms. McClain was indeed fired for raising safety concerns of public interest.

The jury never actually addressed whether a workplace virus had made Ms. McClain ill, because the judge threw out that claim, in part for lack of evidence. Mr. Michaels, the OSHA director, declined to comment on the McClain verdict, but said the issues under dispute in her case underscored the gaps in regulatory protection for lab workers.

For almost all private businesses, OSHA requires employers to report workplace deaths and serious accidents. But the information is usually kept in-house by employers and given to OSHA only if requested during an annual spot check of 80,000 companies — a small fraction of the approximately seven million employers bound by OSHA regulations.

Moreover, OSHA does not have jurisdiction over many academic and government biolabs, where there have been dozens of known cases of worker illness or at least exposure to harmful agents.

Many laboratories in both the public and private sectors adhere to practices in a safety manual published jointly by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Employees of government biolabs and others that receive federal research grants for genetic engineering are covered in part by stricter guidelines from the National Institutes of Health, and some companies voluntarily follow those guidelines. But other private industry workers are dependent on OSHA.

Mr. Michaels said that rather than trying to establish new rules for each infectious agent or for any specific hazards, he expected OSHA to eventually require employers, in consultation with their employees, to identify all potential hazards in their workplaces and to take steps to reduce them. OSHA would then have the power to cite employers for failure to adequately implement this process.

“OSHA has 2,000 inspectors for 130 million-plus workers in seven million workplaces,” Mr. Michaels said. “We can’t take them on one at a time.”

Despite the fact that some worker advocates are pointing to Ms. McClain’s case as representative of broader problems, they are hard pressed to cite other examples of workers in biotechnology companies being harmed.

But these advocates contend that the reason more cases in private industry are not coming to light is that current rules do not put enough pressure on companies to report them. And OSHA’s general safety requirement is notoriously difficult to enforce.

“We don’t know how many Becky McClains there are,” said Adam M. Finkel, who worked for OSHA both as a regional administrator and a director of health standards. “Everybody knows there’s new stuff being made every day that’s incredibly dangerous, but nobody knows how to get their arms around it.”
Pharma Blog » 2010 » May » 28
Are Safety Rules Failing Biotech Lab Employees?
12 Comments

By Ed Silverman // May 28th, 2010 // 8:11 am

biotech-workerDo you recall the case of Becky McClain? She was a Pfizer scientist who claims she was infected by an experimental virus while working at the drugmaker’s Groton, Ct., labs and was awarded $1.37 million by a federal jury (back story and her lawsuit). Workers’ rights groups hailed the verdict and called the decision a major milestone for biotech and nanotech workers everywhere.

Why? There is growing concern that the estimated 232,000 people who work in biotech labs around the US face numerous hazards and inadequate federal safety regulations. The New York Times cites some examples: an Agriculture Department scientist who spent a month in a coma after being infected by the E. coli bacteria her colleagues were experimenting with, and a University of Chicago scientist died after apparently being infected by the focus of his research, which was the bacterium that causes plague.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration acknowledges the problem. “Worker safety cannot be sacrificed on the altar of innovation,” David Michaels, OSHA’s new director, tells the paper. “We have inadequate standards for workers exposed to infectious materials. The OSHA laboratory standard deals with chemicals. It doesn’t deal with infectious agents.” And so OSHA is now requesting suggestions on reducing occupational risks from infectious agents (see here).

However, some argue there is no big safety problem, and workers are adequately protected by voluntary guidelines on safe lab practices and by OSHA’s general rule that employers provide a safe workplace, the Times writes. “The OSHA requirement applies to all industries, including the pharmaceutical industry,” John Keene, a biosafety industry consultant and former president of the American Biological Safety Association, tells the paper. Does self-regulation work? What do you think?

COMMENT:
st

* May 28th, 2010
* 6:19 pm

Unfortunately there are many "lab rats" that work in the biotech industry and they ARE the canaries in the coal mines. This industry does not only include pharma but agriculture research and development as well.

My son was one of those "lab rats" everyone is talking about. To get laboratory "hands on experience" before completing his Bachelor of Science degree; with a major in biology and a minor in chemistry, he accepted a position as a Assistant Researcher/Microbiologist, for a period of 6 months to one year, with a R & D biotechnology company that searches the globe for "novel" microorganisms to be used in the place of chemicals in the agricultural arena and for insect contol.

What resulted after only five months and 9 days on the job?

Purely bloody pus draining from his nose, vomiting profusely, the left side of his face between his eye and lips were numb.

The first, of what would become 4 major sinus surgeries (infections from both bacteria and fungus).

Three years, every 28 days, of IV infusions at a cancer center for loss of an intact immune system - B cells (down below 20%)

AND years and YEARS of infections which continue to this day.

ALL 19 bacteria and fungi that has been found in his blood, sputum and/or nose cultures as well as IgG testing of levels of exposure, are ALL related to the company he worked for.

NOT ALL biotechnology companies are compliant with safety and health for their employees. In fact, the "lab rats" are told "You are safe" there is "nothing here that will hurt you", what you are working with (and around) "won't hurt a fly".

There is a definite problem in how the United States DOES NOT protect the biotech employee. The individual states themselves DON'T WANT the biotech business to leave their states... so they "hear no evil", "see no evil" and "speak no evil".

Has anyone read the article, CRYPTOCOCCUS GATTII: DEADY STRAIN OF FUNGUS SPREADING IN THE U.S.?
http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_28884.php

This is of no surprise to me.

In the search for "novel" microorganisms (LIVING fungus, bacteria etc.) to be used on food crops and for insect control, NUMEROUS "microbe hunters" search the world to find "NEW STRAINS" of fungi and bacteria.

This SEARCH takes scientist's to jungles, rain forests, ocean caves, etc. The scientist's search in soil, plants, etc.

The scientist's bring FOREIGN soils, plants, etc. into their homelands.

I was amazed to find that in searching for microorganisms in plant material; there can be "BETWEEN ONE AND UP TO THIRTY INDIVIDUAL MICROORGANISMS". This is a quote from Gary Strobel in his video, Jewels of The Jungle!SERIES 2 PART TWO http://www.lifeonterra.com/episode.php?id=88

The commentator in Strobel's video, Jewels of The Jungle!SERIES 2!PART!THREE http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/2637653 goes on to say, ""Dr. Strobel's next and final step is to now share the details of his
discoveries with the rest of the scientific community."

THESE "discoveries" are then not only shared with pharmaceutical companies, but with agriculture biotech companies as well, that experiment with the newly discovered microorganism for use on our food supply and for insect control. They are then manufactured and sold as "bio control" products that are on the market across the world.

The MAJORITY of bio-control products are LIVING MICROORGANISMS; bacteria, fungus, etc.

ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE LISTED on the product label is the "active ingredient"; the bacteria or fungus that is used against a "target pest". The "target pest" doesn't only relate to an insect, but a bacterial or fungal disease of a plant.

The "active ingredient" can be as low as .07%. THE PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE A "RIGHT-TO-KNOW" what the "other ingredients" are.

Who is to say the "newly discovered" and/or "new species" of microorganisms are safe?

New diseases are emerging at a very fast rate. IS THERE ANY WONDER WHY?

http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/05/are-safety-rules-failing-biotech-lab-employees/#comments

Ironically, on the same day the New York Times article, “Safety Rules Can’t Keep Up With Biotech Industry” broke, the scientific watchdog group, The Council for Responsible Genetics-GeneWatch Magazine submitted the electronic version of the print subscription; March-April 2010 issue titled, “BioLab Safety”.

The Editor of GeneWatch, Sam Anderson stated in the Editorial Section, ” This may be one of the most important GeneWatch issue in recent memory”.

The electronic version of GeneWatch magazine; BioLab Safety is available free online at http://issuu.com/genewatchmagazine/docs/genewatch23-2?mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Flight%2Flayout.xml&showFlipBtn=true This 28 page electronic version can be read as you would a “printed” magazine issue.

March-April 2010 issue; “BioLab Safety” articles:

A Cruel and Unusual Corporation
By Ralph Nader

A Roach in the Kitchen
By CRG staff – interview with Becky McClain

Commentary: GM Crops
By Eric Hoffman

Dedication: Tony Mazzocchi
By Jeremy Gruber

Give Them an Inch…
By Michael Siciliano

One Bug, One Drug
By Lynn Klotz, Edward Sylvester

The Lab in My Backyard
By Beth Willis

Teatime in the Lab
By Sam Anderson

Book Review: Breeding Bio Insecurity and Germs Gone Wild
By Andrew Thibedeau

Flushing It Down the Rabbit Hole
By Andrew Thibedeau

Topic: Genetic Discrimination
By Jeremy Gruber

Topic: Forensic DNA Databanks
By CRG Staff

The Case of Dr. Malcolm Casadaban
By CRG Staff
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$190.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network