Warning of a worldwide boom in laboratories designed to work with the deadliest pathogens

Concerns have arisen today about a boom in laboratories dedicated to dealing with the most dangerous pathogens in the post-Covid world.

Over 100 objects designed to store and experiment with viruses such as ebola And bird flu now exist globally.

But leading scientists are alarmed by the lack of oversight of the labs, saying lax biosafety regulations are a particular problem in Asia.

The lab leak is one of the main theories about the origin of Covid. China accused of covering up the possibility that the virus escaped from a high-security facility in Wuhan, the city where the pandemic began.

The coalition of scientists from the UK and the US that produced today’s report said there are currently 69 Biosafety Level 4 (BSL) facilities.

This map shows all known BSL-4 labs, with countries shaded based on how scientists rated their overall biorisk management score.  Green is good, yellow is average, red is bad.  Some planned laboratories are not included because their exact location in the country has not been announced.

This map shows all known BSL-4 labs, with countries shaded based on how scientists rated their overall biorisk management score. Green is good, yellow is average, red is bad. Some planned laboratories are not included because their exact location in the country has not been announced.

This map shows all of the known BSL-3+ labs featured in the report.  It also shows countries color-coded based on how scientists rate their overall biorisk management: green countries are good, yellow are average, and red countries are poor.  Gray indicates no rating.  Some planned laboratories are not included because their exact location in the country has not been announced.

This map shows all of the known BSL-3+ labs featured in the report. It also shows countries color-coded based on how scientists rate their overall biorisk management: green countries are good, yellow are average, and red countries are poor. Gray indicates no rating. Some planned laboratories are not included because their exact location in the country has not been announced.

This is up from 59 just two years ago.

Notable BSL-4 labs include Porton Down here in the UK and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is central to the Covid ‘lab leak’ theory.

Experiments in these labs may involve what some commentators consider acquisition of function, a highly contentious branch of science that seeks to manipulate pathogens. Some may be more deadly.

Of the current BSL-4 labs, about 75 percent are in urban areas.

The report warns that this could “exacerbate” the potential impact of an accidental release, as pathogens such as tree pathogens such as smallpox are stored in laboratories. ebola and Lassa fever.

Experts are now also seriously concerned about the emergence of a new type of laboratory, which they call BSL-3+. of these, 57 have been identified worldwide.

Most of them are in Europe, with 80 percent in urban areas.

These institutions conduct research on viruses such as avian influenza without the more stringent biosecurity procedures of BSL-4 laboratories.

In addition, as more and more BSL-3+ laboratories are located in high-density urban environments, the risk of any potential pathogen leakage increases.

Photo: Wuhan Institute of Virology.  Concerns that the next pandemic will be caused by a lab leak are rising as more and more attention is turned to the Wuhan lab as a potential entry point for Covid.

Photo: Wuhan Institute of Virology. Concerns that the next pandemic will be caused by a lab leak are rising as more and more attention is turned to the Wuhan lab as a potential entry point for Covid.

These tables show the number of open and under construction BSI-4 and BSL-3+ laboratories on each continent.

These tables show the number of open and under construction BSI-4 and BSL-3+ laboratories on each continent.

This graphic shows the rules and restrictions governing research that can make high-risk pathogens more lethal.  Only Canada, the US and the UK scored 50 or more points.

This graphic shows the rules and restrictions governing research that can make high-risk pathogens more lethal. Only Canada, the US and the UK scored 50 or more points.

This graph shows countries with high-risk laboratories in operation or planned, ranked by the strength of their biorisk management policies that can prevent the release or development of a deadly pathogen.  The lower the score, the smaller or weaker the measures taken

This graph shows countries with high-risk laboratories in operation or planned, ranked by the strength of their biorisk management policies that can prevent the release or development of a deadly pathogen. The lower the score, the smaller or weaker the measures taken

The findings are taken from the Global BioLabs Report 2023 published by King’s College London.

Dr Philippa Lenzos, an international security expert at King’s College London, said the lab boom was worrying, especially in parts of Asia, given the general lack of biorisk management policies in the region.

She said: “We are seeing a rapid expansion of maximum protection laboratories in Asia, but many of these countries are doing a poor job of managing biorisks.

“The world has experienced a boom in the construction of laboratories to work with dangerous pathogens.

“But it wasn’t accompanied by enough oversight of biosafety and biosecurity.”

Laboratories that use pathogens in research must meet a certain standard of biosafety regulations for handling them.

The more dangerous the pathogen, the higher the required BSL level.

For example, BSL-4 labs may have armed guards and researchers are ordered to wear fully enclosed PPE suits during experiments.

But unlike BSL4 facilities, there is no requirement under the Biological Weapons Convention’s confidence-building measures to declare BSL3+ labs and their activities.

This means there is “no evidence” that the biosecurity measures at these new labs are adequate for the research they are conducting, the report’s authors warn.

Therefore, they can independently introduce higher biosecurity measures than standard BSL-3 labs, such as additional training and equipment, but this is not standardized.

The report indicated that the most common pathogen studied in BSL-3+ was avian influenza, which was many scientists believe that this could trigger the next pandemic.

Some are also afraid to do research to enhance function.

A total of 40 percent of the 57 BSL-3+ labs identified in the report were government-run.

Another 40 percent belonged to universities, while the rest was equally divided between private companies and the military.

Joint project leader, Dr. Gregory Koblenz of the School of Politics and Management. Shara of George Mason University in the US, said: “We urgently need coordinated international action to address rising biorisks.”

The team behind the new report earlier named and shamed the countries with the most lenient regulations governing laboratories that contain the most dangerous pathogens in the world.

They found Saudi ArabiaGabon and Côte d’Ivoire are at the very bottom of the list in terms of safety standards in BSL-4 labs.

CanadaThe US, Australia, and the UK as a whole have some of the best standards, according to infectious disease experts who have ranked all known medical institutions around the world.

Gain of Function Research: Everything You Need to Know About Risky Lab Experiments

What is gain of function?

This is a highly controversial research practice that involves deliberately modifying a pathogen to improve its ability to cause disease.

At the most basic level, scientists modify them to make them more infectious or deadly.

Typically, tests are done on human or rodent cells to see how they perform under highly controlled laboratory conditions.

Why is this being done?

The reason for such experiments is that they allow scientists to effectively look around the corner and anticipate how a pathogen might evolve naturally.

It also gives scientists the opportunity to better understand its impact on people and its behavior.

In theory, this could speed up the development of drugs and vaccines, especially for infectious diseases that are currently untreatable.

Is it dangerous?

Research to increase functionality, despite being carried out in biocontainment facilities with workers in hazmat suits and sealed doors, is highly controversial.

Critics argue that the benefits of the study are not worth the potential risks, no matter how small.

Some scientists fear that the development of mutant viruses could lead to the next pandemic if they accidentally leak out of the lab.

Such an event is one theory for the origin of the original Covid virus, which was first discovered in Wuhan, near the now infamous Wuhan Institute of Virology.

However, advocates insist that such changes can occur naturally.

Is this done only for Covid?

Although it has been in the spotlight during the Covid pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 is not the only pathogen that has been experimented with in this way.

Deriving function has been used for many years, including by making plants more drought tolerant and modifying E. coli to degrade plastic waste.

What is an enhancement of function?

There is a huge debate among experts about what exactly constitutes “acquisition of function” research.

Some research does not aim to deliberately create a more dangerous pathogen, but may do so by modifying it to learn more about how it infects cells.