Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 1
Summary
In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed creating
the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) under the provisions of
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9, which allows DHS to expand its
efforts to protect US agriculture and public health. The NBAF was envisioned to
have the capacity and capability to conduct research and diagnostic activities for
foreign animal diseases (FADs) and zoonotic diseases (diseases that are trans-
missible between animals and humans) at high-biocontainment levels1 that can
accommodate livestock species. It was also intended to replace the aging Plum
Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC), which for more than 50 years has been
part of the federal network of laboratories in which research and diagnostics on
FADs are conducted. PIADC is the only US facility authorized to conduct re-
search on foot-and-mouth disease, a highly contagious disease that the United
States has been free of since 1929 and that constitutes a major threat to the US
livestock industry.
US animal agriculture is valued at $165 billion and is a principal source of
food, a major source of livelihood for Americans, and a major contributor to US
agricultural exports. Given its importance, there is a need to protect it from
threats of FADs and zoonotic diseases and from potential threats caused by new
and emerging pathogens. The proposed NBAF has been envisioned as a next-
generation laboratory that would have a central role in the national infrastructure
needed to handle threats from FADs, zoonotic diseases, and emerging diseases.
However, construction of the proposed NBAF will incur a large expense. With
the estimated cost of $1.14 billion to construct the NBAF at the proposed site
and the country’s current fiscal challenges, DHS turned to the National Research
Council for expert advice to assess the disease threats to US animal and public
health, describe the laboratory capabilities and capacity needed to address those
threats, and analyze three proposed options to meet laboratory needs. The three
options as stipulated by DHS are (1) constructing the NBAF as designed, (2)
constructing a scaled-back version of the NBAF to be described by the commit-
1
High biocontainment is used in the report to refer to biosafety levels (BSL) 3 or 4. A
description of biosafety levels is found in Box 3-1.
1
OCR for page 2
2 CRITICAL LABORATORY NEEDS FOR ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
tee, and (3) maintaining current capabilities at PIADC while leveraging ABSL-4
laboratory capacity (for livestock) by using foreign laboratories.
In response to the request, the National Research Council convened an ad
hoc committee to conduct a scientific assessment of the requirements for a for-
eign animal and zoonotic disease research and diagnostic laboratory facility in
the United States. As part of its task, the committee assessed the threats to US
livestock from current and emerging diseases, including zoonoses, considered an
ideal system for addressing those disease threats, and identified the laboratory
infrastructure in which the diseases could be diagnosed and studied. The scope
of the committee’s analysis was limited to examining the three proposed op-
tions. The task explicitly excluded an assessment of specific site locations for
the proposed laboratory facility; therefore, it was not within the committee’s
charge to compare the relative risks of the three options nor to determine where
foot-and-mouth disease research can be safely conducted. The committee’s con-
clusions and recommendation are summarized in Box S-1 at the end of this
chapter.
IMPORTANCE AND VULNERABILITY OF
US ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
The United States has been fortunate to have an abundance of natural re-
sources to support its agricultural industry. But the continued success of the
food-animal sector has also been due both to unparalleled advances in research
that have resulted in remarkable gains in agricultural productivity, and to pro-
gress in eliminating many livestock and poultry diseases that still impact animal
production and trade in other countries. Investments in an effective animal-
health infrastructure have enabled US animal agriculture to focus on producing
animals for food to meet growing domestic and international demands. How-
ever, the security of this multibillion-dollar enterprise and of the food system to
which animal agriculture is intricately connected remains vulnerable to diseases
threats, whether intentionally or naturally introduced.
Numerous recent National Research Council studies have assessed disease
threats to animal and public health, and the committee did not attempt an ex-
haustive reconsideration of the broad array of disease agents that can affect ani-
mal agriculture. The list of disease threats has not changed nor have the drivers
of disease emergence in our global society that can give rise to novel agents or
to disease outbreaks caused by agents that are exotic to the United States. Ani-
mal diseases that have high priority with the US Department of Agriculture
(USDA) also appear on the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) list of
animal diseases; although many of these diseases are considered threats to live-
stock, many are also important zoonoses. In addition to naturally introduced
disease threats, the nation also faces the threat of bio- or agroterrorism in which
a disease agent is deliberately introduced to destabilize food sources or generate
fear. Several homeland security presidential directives have focused on con-
OCR for page 3
SUMMARY 3
fronting those potential hazards. Therefore, a comprehensive system to counter
disease threats to animal agriculture is vital.
Recent epidemics of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and foot-
and-mouth disease in the United Kingdom, foot-and-mouth disease in South
Korea and Taiwan, and highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) in Asia
provide salient examples of the magnitude and breadth of possible consequences
associated with disease outbreaks. The global severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS) epidemic in 2003 demonstrates the effects of a disease that originated in
animals and resulted in severe losses to individuals and many business sectors.
Thus, whether they directly affect the health of animals only or whether they are
transmitted from animals to humans, disease outbreaks have a major impact on
agriculture, food security, and socioeconomic well-being.
THE ROLE OF A NATIONAL LABORATORY FACILITY
IN AN INTEGRATED SYSTEM
Protecting US animal agriculture requires an integrated system that spans
authorities, geography, and many programs and activities. The adage that a
chain is only as strong as its weakest link applies to the complex systems needed
to protect animal agriculture from the incursion of serious diseases and to ad-
dress a riskier world. The committee addressed its study task in the context of an
ideal integrated system for addressing FAD and zoonotic disease threats to the
United States and considered what the role of a national biocontainment labora-
tory would be within such a system. The ideal system would capture and inte-
grate the substantial human and physical assets distributed throughout the nation
to address the threat of FADs and zoonotic diseases. It would include compo-
nents of surveillance, diagnostics, and disease response and recovery. Research
and development and workforce training are also critical core elements that sup-
port each of the functional arms (Figure S-1).
A national role in the coordination of the system is essential, and a federal
laboratory or network of laboratories would be the cornerstone of an integrated
system. The ideal system also reaches beyond national borders to tap the exper-
tise and resources of the global infectious disease surveillance, diagnostic, and
research communities. Recognizing the threat posed by zoonotic diseases and
the known and potential roles that animals play in maintaining and transmitting
infectious agents, the ideal system captures both human- and animal-health ex-
pertise and laboratory infrastructure to achieve common goals for disease recog-
nition and response.
A substantial number of high-biocontainment (BSL-3 and BSL-4) laborato-
ries have been constructed in the United States by federal and state agencies,
universities, and private companies in the past 10 years. They provide an oppor-
tunity for collaborations that maximize national efforts to detect and respond to
any incursion of an FAD or zoonotic disease. Strategic collaborations with other
biocontainment facilities would also potentially enhance the efficient use of a
OCR for page 4
4 CRITICAL LABORATORY NEEDS FOR ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
central laboratory. One example is the 13 regional BSL-3 containment laborato-
ries constructed with funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). They
are generally large facilities that include laboratory space for both in vitro and in
vivo research and product-development activities to address emerging infectious
diseases and pathogens of bioterrorism concern. Their activity focuses on patho-
gens of human-health importance, some of which may also affect agriculturally
important animals.
BSL-4 laboratories with the capacity to handle large animals (ABSL-4 large
animal) exist outside the United States. Each of them has the capability to han-
dle livestock species and, depending on the situation at the time a request is
made, may be willing to collaborate with US scientists to investigate pathogens
that require ABSL-4 large-animal containment. However, the primary responsi-
bility of those laboratories is to address their own national government and do-
mestic needs.
T rained Workforce
Integrated
System for
Disease Threats
Diagnostic
Laboratory Network
FIGURE S-1 Components of an integrated national system for addressing foreign animal
disease and zoonotic disease threats. Laboratory infrastructure underlies all components.
Although there are several BSL-4 laboratories in the United States, there is
no ABSL-4 large-animal facility and the challenges of using the highest level of
biocontainment space (ABSL-4) for large-animal research and diagnostic devel-
opment are substantial. Additionally, the facilities at PIADC dedicated to FADs
are dated and increasingly cost-inefficient. While biosafety level 3 agriculture
(BSL-3Ag) containment space that is appropriate for research using group-
housed agricultural animals has expanded through construction of several new
facilities (such as the Biosecurity Research Institute and the National Animal
Disease Center), it is insufficient to meet all of the needs for FAD research in
OCR for page 5
SUMMARY 5
the United States. Thus, there is a critical national need for laboratory capacity
with modern BSL-3Ag and ABSL-4 large-animal capabilities that can serve as
the hub of a national strategy for detection of and response to any incursion of
an FAD and that can accommodate the study of infectious diseases of public-
health importance in which livestock serve as key reservoir hosts. However,
with the rapidly evolving nature of disease threats that confront animal health
and with the rapid development of technologies for detecting and responding to
diseases, planning for the construction of such a facility requires a flexible and
nimble strategy for programmatic and facility design. Such a facility cannot
stand alone and needs to be integrated in a national system. US programs for
FAD and zoonotic disease detection and response (programs proposed for the
NBAF) should have interfaces with similar activities and programs of the Na-
tional Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, the US Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious
Diseases, USDA, NIH, and academic and state institutions to maximize effi-
ciency and the use of intellectual resources through interdisciplinary research
that crosses traditional agency boundaries. Such interagency working relation-
ships would be essential for maximizing the success of the NBAF.
ANALYSIS OF THREE LABORATORY INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIONS
Laboratory infrastructure underlies all components of an ideal integrated
system to address disease threats. Such a laboratory infrastructure would include
the capacity to safely perform diagnostics, to conduct research on foot-and-
mouth disease, to conduct research on non-foot-and-mouth disease FADs and
zoonotic diseases in BSL-3Ag facilities, to undertake special pathogen activities
in BSL-4 and ABSL-4 facilities, to support teaching and training, and to enable
vaccine or other product development. In the context of these critical core labo-
ratory components, the committee examined the advantages and liabilities of the
three proposed options in its statement of task: constructing NBAF as currently
designed, scaling back the size and scope of the proposed NBAF, or maintaining
the current PIADC and leveraging the US capability and capacity through inter-
national laboratories with ABSL-4 large-animal containment space.
Option 1, the NBAF as currently designed, includes all components of the
ideal laboratory infrastructure in a single location and has been designed to meet
the current and anticipated future mission needs of DHS, the USDA Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), and the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS). It creates ABSL-4 large-animal capacity and additional BSL-
3Ag capacity in the United States and would provide the United States with
needed in-country infrastructure to address FAD and zoonotic disease threats.
By housing the laboratory components in one facility, it avoids a need to move
specimens or materials (some of which may be select agents) from other facili-
ties and avoids a need to rely on partner entities in the United States or interna-
tionally. However, there are also drawbacks. Substantial costs are associated
OCR for page 6
6 CRITICAL LABORATORY NEEDS FOR ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
with the construction, operation, and management of the proposed NBAF in
addition to costs associated with the proposed expansions in DHS, USDA-ARS,
and USDA-APHIS programs. Because it houses the laboratory components and
associated research, development, and training activities in a central facility, the
proposed NBAF does not fully utilize other existing and complementary invest-
ments in high-biocontainment laboratory, diagnostic, training, and vaccine de-
velopment capacity in the United States and has the potential for duplication of
resources—duplication that could be addressed by exploring partnerships with
other facilities.
Several components of the NBAF as currently designed could potentially be
reduced in size and scope or eliminated if US and international partnerships
were used to meet the needs of an ideal system. In analyzing Option 2, an NBAF
of reduced size and scope as described by the committee, examples of the areas
that the committee suggested could be considered for reduction or elimination
from the proposed NBAF are the biodevelopment module (BDM) for pilot vac-
cine production and BSL-3Ag rooms designated for training along with the as-
sociated training necropsy room. The committee also suggested that reductions
in the sizes of the BSL-3Ag animal rooms, the ABSL-4 small-animal rooms, and
the associated BSL-3E and BSL-4 laboratory space could be considered. The
pilot vaccine production work conducted in the BDM, which is outside the bio-
containment envelope, and most teaching and training activities could be con-
ducted in collaboration with other US federal, state, university, and private-
sector laboratories. Option 2 would have lower construction costs than the pro-
posed NBAF and might also have lower sustained operations costs, although the
actual cost implications are not clear given the limited and insufficient informa-
tion provided by DHS. The NBAF of reduced size and scope as described by the
committee would still consolidate DHS, USDA-ARS, and USDA-APHIS mis-
sions in a single location and address critical core gaps in BSL-3Ag and ABSL-
4 large-animal capabilities in the United States. It could also make more effi-
cient use of recently expanded US high-biocontainment laboratory capacity
while achieving the overall needs of countering FAD and zoonotic disease
threats to the nation. Option 2 highlights a change in the approach to animal
diseases by drawing on scientific and research expertise available in other fed-
eral laboratories and outside government, providing intellectual benefits and
possible cost savings through increased efficiencies by avoiding duplication, and
fostering greater collaboration between researchers as part of an integrated US
system for countering FAD and zoonotic disease threats. Finally, by relying on a
network of partners, this option may provide increased flexibility to re-evaluate
laboratory infrastructure needs periodically in light of new and emerging disease
priorities and technologies. In contrast, not all components of the ideal system
would be housed in a single facility. Implementing this option successfully
would require the creation of agreements with the necessary federal agency and
nongovernment partner facilities, including funding commitments to partner
facilities to conduct collaborative work and management capacity to oversee
collaborations. Pursuing this option would thus have policy implications and
OCR for page 7
SUMMARY 7
might require DHS and USDA to make priority-setting decisions, given the po-
tential reductions in designated agency laboratory space in the central facility.
A partnership of a central national laboratory of reduced scope and size and
a distributed laboratory network can effectively protect the United States from
FADs and zoonotic diseases, potentially realize cost savings, reduce redundan-
cies while increasing efficiencies, and enhance the cohesiveness of a national
system of biocontainment laboratories. However, because the cost implications
of reducing the scope and capacity of a central facility cannot be known without
further information and study, it will be important for DHS and USDA to make
a good-faith effort to re-examine construction and operating costs of a labora-
tory of reduced size and complexity, and to also consider what those implica-
tions are for priority-setting decisions.
Option 3, maintaining PIADC and leveraging ABSL-4 large-animal capac-
ity through other partners, would utilize an existing US facility that provides
some of the needed laboratory infrastructure components and would avoid the
costs of constructing a new replacement facility. PIADC is also the only US
facility for research, diagnostics, and training related to foot-and-mouth disease.
However, DHS highlighted the fact that the facilities at PIADC are aging and do
not meet current standards for high-biocontainment laboratories. There are sub-
stantial costs associated with maintaining and operating PIADC over the long
term, it lacks BSL-4 and ABSL-4 capabilities, and the committee was informed
by DHS that such facilities could not be constructed at PIADC. If a full com-
mitment were made to improving and maintaining PIADC, a period of transition
to a new facility with a window of potential loss of function would not be
needed. Option 3 would also realize the benefits of capital renovations and im-
provements that must be made no matter which option is selected over a longer
period. As the committee explored the potential of relying on international part-
ners for emergency work that might require ABSL-4 large-animal laboratory
space, it found remarkably little capacity near the United States. Because this
option would not provide the United States with ABSL-4 large-animal capabili-
ties, agreements with foreign partners for access to ABSL-4 large-animal space
and funding to support these collaborations would be required. Although that
could enhance international collaboration in research on FADs and zoonotic
diseases, it could limit the availability of ABSL-4 capabilities in a time of criti-
cal need, depending on the priorities of the foreign countries, and would separate
ABSL-4 large-animal facilities from other FAD research.
ESSENTIAL CAPABILITIES NEEDED
Research to understand and protect the United States from the consequences
of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease remains a high priority, and PIADC is
the only US facility currently authorized to conduct work with foot-and-mouth
disease virus (FMDv). Because foot-and-mouth disease research remains critical
for the US animal-health system, the committee concludes that it will be essen-
OCR for page 8
8 CRITICAL LABORATORY NEEDS FOR ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
tial to support PIADC until an alternative facility is authorized, constructed,
commissioned, and approved for work with FMDv.
Although current livestock-specific FADs do not require BSL-4 laboratory
containment, a disease outbreak caused in US livestock by a highly contagious
zoonotic virus or a novel pathogen of undetermined transmissibility would re-
quire appropriate emergency biocontainment; it would also require research in
live animals to characterize the infectious agent, transmission, and host range
and susceptibility and to validate diagnostics. The committee notes that it is in
the interest of the United States to pursue partnerships with countries that have
ABSL-4 large-animal laboratories for the study of zoonotic agents of agricul-
tural concern. However, given the uncertainty of priorities of a foreign labora-
tory and logistical difficulties in an emergency, it would not be desirable for the
United States to rely on international laboratories to meet ABSL-4 large-animal
needs in the long term. Therefore, as part of the national infrastructure for pro-
tecting animal and public health, the committee concludes that there is an im-
perative to build ABSL-4 large-animal space in the United States.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR FULFILLING NATIONAL NEEDS
Realizing cost savings in the construction and operation of laboratory facili-
ties is a critically important objective; however, it is no less important for DHS,
USDA, and other relevant agencies to maintain their focus on the overarching
goal of developing a highly capable system for addressing FAD and zoonotic
disease threats. A central laboratory would be a key part of an integrated na-
tional system, but it would only be one component of the system; therefore, the
committee concludes that innovative, forward-thinking solutions are required
not only about the central laboratory but about the entire system. The solutions
for the entire system may need to involve consideration of a wider range of op-
tions for the central laboratory. That analysis extends beyond the scope of the
current study.
In exploring national capabilities, the committee found a substantial number
of public and private biocontainment laboratories across the country; these are
capabilities that did not exist nearly a decade ago when Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 9 was issued, nor did they exist when previous NRC re-
ports on options for a national biocontainment laboratory were issued. Institu-
tions that house a variety of BSL-3, BSL-3Ag, and BSL-4 laboratories in the
United States can serve as partners in a national system and those existing capa-
bilities can be leveraged in the national interest. The major barriers to leveraging
capabilities at those facilities are the need to establish formal relationships,
agreed-upon operational protocols, contractual funding arrangements, and well-
reasoned policies about the kind of work that can be conducted in different fa-
cilities. Yet in the committee’s view, it is precisely those kinds of relationships
that could move the nation closer to the ideal, integrated national system to ad-
dress animal disease threats—one in which a distributed laboratory network is
OCR for page 9
SUMMARY 9
tied closely to a central supporting facility. Regardless of the options consid-
ered for a central facility, the committee recommends that DHS and USDA
develop and implement an integrated national strategy that utilizes a dis-
tributed system for addressing FAD and zoonotic disease threats. The Na-
tional Animal Health Laboratory Network is an excellent model of such a dis-
tributed laboratory network and would serve a critical role in a more
comprehensive and integrated national strategy.
Balanced Support for Infrastructure and Research and Development
The committee concludes that it is critical for policy-makers and agency
planners to recognize that an effective system for addressing FAD and zoonotic
disease threats to the United States consists of more than facilities; it also re-
quires robust research programs. Those cannot be traded off against one another;
rather, balanced support is needed to enable the continuation of research priori-
ties and capital costs associated with maintaining or constructing modern labora-
tory facilities.
Ongoing Planning and Prioritizing for the National System
The committee concludes that conceptualizing, implementing, and main-
taining a US national system to address threats posed by FADs and zoonotic
diseases requires not only an understanding of today’s priorities and technolo-
gies but continued monitoring and assessment to understand how the high-
priority threats and the tools available to address them change over time. Such
vision and planning are critical and must be ongoing. There is a related need for
continuing communication and coordination among the many parties and stake-
holders that form an efficient, effective, and integrated national system.
Alternative Funding Mechanisms
The committee concludes that exploring alternative funding mechanisms to
supplement current federal allocations for capital and operational costs and for
program support would be useful. Alternative funding strategies used by other
countries could be considered as possible models. For instance, Australia draws
on industry contributions to help support its national animal disease capabilities.
It may also be useful to explore the possibility of using public-private partner-
ships to support and maintain aspects of facilities and research programs.
OCR for page 10
10 CRITICAL LABORATORY NEEDS FOR ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
Consideration of All Factors of Concern
The importance of having a strong national system to recognize and counter
the threats posed by FADs and zoonotic diseases may not always be apparent
when disease outbreaks are quickly identified, mitigated, and contained, but the
consequences of such disease outbreaks can be enormous if and when a system
fails. This study provides a high-level view of whether each of the three options
stipulated by DHS could be feasible in meeting the nation’s needs. As discussed
in Chapter 4, the committee also recognizes that the three DHS-proposed op-
tions may not be the only options worth considering. Concerns considered in
this study—costs, necessary capabilities, and infrastructure needs—do not re-
flect all of the factors decision-makers must consider. The factors that were con-
sidered in the original assessment that led to decisions about the NBAF may or
may not have changed. For example, safety concerns still linger on the issue of
bringing foot-and-mouth disease research onto the US mainland and the risk of
accidental release of FMDv and its consequent impacts. Decisions about infra-
structure needs should not be made in the absence of risk concerns as well as the
many other factors worthy of consideration. The committee concludes that to
most appropriately fill critical laboratory needs in the United States, all factors
of concern (including site location, risk assessment, political considerations,
adaptability for the future) will need to be considered in a more comprehensive
assessment.
BOX S-1
Conclusions and Recommendation for
Meeting Critical Laboratory Needs
It is imperative to establish research, diagnostic, and surveillance laboratory ca-
pabilities commensurate with the size and value of the US animal agriculture industry
to prevent or mitigate a disease outbreak that could have devastating effects on hu-
man and animal lives and livelihoods. The ideal system to counter threats from for-
eign animal diseases (FADs) and zoonotic diseases includes research, development,
and training; a centralized core facility; a distributed network of national and interna-
tional partnerships; and disease surveillance, diagnostic, and response capabilities. A
central laboratory would be a key part of an integrated national system, but it would
only be one component of the system. In addressing its Statement of Task, the com-
mittee provides the following conclusions and recommendation for fulfilling critical
laboratory needs in the United States.
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusion 1: The National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) as cur-
rently designed includes all components of the ideal laboratory infrastructure in a
single location and has been designed to meet the current and anticipated future
(Continued)
OCR for page 11
SUMMARY 11
BOX S-1 Continued
mission needs of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and the USDA Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS); but the proposed facility also has draw-
backs (i.e., substantial costs associated with construction, operation, and manage-
ment; not leveraging existing capacity and potential duplication of resources).
Conclusion 2: A partnership of a central national laboratory of reduced scope
and size and a distributed laboratory network can effectively protect the United States
from FADs and zoonotic diseases, potentially realize cost savings, reduce redundan-
cies while increasing efficiencies, and enhance the cohesiveness of a national system
of biocontainment laboratories. However, given the limited and insufficient informa-
tion provided by DHS, the cost implications of reducing the scope and capacity of a
central facility cannot be known without further information and study.
Conclusion 3: Maintaining the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC)
and drawing on the ABSL-4 large-animal capacity of other partners would utilize an
existing US facility that provides some of the needed laboratory infrastructure com-
ponents and would avoid the costs of constructing a new replacement facility. How-
ever, the facilities at PIADC are aging and do not meet current standards for high-
biocontainment laboratories. There are substantial costs associated with maintaining
and operating PIADC over the long term, it lacks BSL-4 and ABSL-4 large-animal
capabilities, and the committee was informed by DHS that such facilities could not be
constructed at PIADC. Given the uncertainty over priorities of a foreign laboratory
and logistical difficulties in an emergency, it would not be desirable for the United
States to rely on international laboratories to meet ABSL-4 large-animal needs in the
long term.
Conclusion 4: Because foot-and-mouth disease research remains critical for the
US animal-health system, it will be essential to support PIADC until an alternative
facility is authorized, constructed, commissioned, and approved for work with FMDv.
Conclusion 5: As part of the national infrastructure for protecting animal and
public health, there is an imperative to build ABSL-4 large-animal space in the
United States.
Conclusion 6: Innovative, forward-thinking solutions are required not only
about the central laboratory but about the entire system.
Conclusion 7: It is critical for policy-makers and agency planners to recognize
that an effective system for addressing FAD and zoonotic disease threats to the
United States consists of more than facilities; it also requires robust research pro-
grams.
Conclusion 8: Conceptualizing, implementing, and maintaining a US national
system to address threats posed by FADs and zoonotic diseases requires not only an
understanding of today’s priorities and technologies but continued monitoring and
assessment to understand how the high-priority threats and the tools available to ad-
dress them change over time. Such vision and planning are critical and must be ongo-
ing.
Conclusion 9: Exploring alternative funding mechanisms to supplement current
federal allocations for capital and operational costs and for program support would be
useful.
(Continued)
OCR for page 12
12 CRITICAL LABORATORY NEEDS FOR ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
BOX S-1 Continued
Conclusion 10: To most appropriately fill critical laboratory needs in the United
States, all factors of concern (including site location, risk assessment, political con-
siderations, adaptability for the future) will need to be considered in a more compre-
hensive assessment.
RECOMMENDATION
Regardless of the options considered for a central facility, the committee rec-
ommends that DHS and USDA develop and implement an integrated national strat-
egy that utilizes a distributed system for addressing FAD and zoonotic disease threats.
