San Diego

Officials charged with distributing billions of dollars for US biodefence research are keeping a nervous eye on a small town in Montana, where residents have delayed a project to build a new pathogen-research laboratory.

Not in my back yard: neighbours don't want a bioweapons lab added to the Rocky Mountain lab. Credit: NIAID

A summer of discontent in Hamilton led the town's Rocky Mountain Laboratories to order a lengthy environmental assessment of its plan to build a Biosafety Level Four (BSL-4) complex. BSL-4 labs are licensed to handle very contagious agents, such as ebola and smallpox. Environmental consultants were recruited last month to do the study, and the process will add 12 months to the four-year construction schedule.

The decision to build a BSL-4 lab at the Rocky Mountain centre was one of the first made by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) after it was provisionally awarded $4 billion for biodefence research in February. Of this, $430 million was for building secure facilities. The specific pathogens to be studied have not been confirmed, but the Hamilton lab is considered a suitable venue as it already has BSL-3 facilities for studying diseases transmitted by animals. Last year's anthrax attacks focused attention on the scarcity of US facilities for biodefence research. The only large BSL-4 labs, for example, were at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, and at a US Army base in Fort Detrick, Maryland.

Problems with consulting the 4,000 residents of Hamilton were evident early on. Lab administrators were criticized for holding the first public meeting on the evening of St Valentine's Day. At a second meeting in July, residents were told that they had just two weeks to submit comments for consideration in an environmental assessment of the lab.

“That was ludicrous,” says Mary Wulff, a former policewoman who helped to found a coalition to oppose the lab's development. “Things started to snowball after that. Residents are walking around the town saying 'why don't they just put in the middle of nowhere?'” The coalition complained repeatedly to the lab, citing concerns such as the inability of the region's volunteer fire and emergency teams to deal with injuries resulting from an escape of pathogens.

Faced with increasing anger from the local community, lab officials were forced to agree to a more detailed study of the environmental impact. The study could generate further legal challenges when it is released.

Officials at NIAID admit that they tried to rush the project through after last autumn's US anthrax attacks. “So many things were happening so fast, there was a national emergency under way,” says Jack Killen, NIAID's assistant director for biodefence research.

NIAID officials are hoping that the Rocky Mountain episode will improve their relations with the community. Staff at Rocky Mountain Laboratories have formed a committee to liaise with the community, and asked a member of Wulff's coalition to join it. But NIAID wants to build several new facilities, including two BSL-4 labs, and some bidders, such as the University of California, Davis, are situated close to large cities. Wulff says that her coalition may campaign for a more extensive environmental analysis of all US biosafety labs.

Bidders for the NIAID funding will be required to show that they have the support of the local community. NIAID officials hope that bidders can learn from more successful projects. The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, for example, is building its own BSL-4 lab, for completion next year. It has gone ahead without significant resistance, partly because of an extensive education and outreach campaign by university officials. “The lesson is clear,” says Killen. “You have to develop these facilities in collaboration with communities.”