The Science of Safety

Last Thursday's federal approval of a new biolab at Boston University provides yet another indicator of just how entrenched the politics of security has become. The research lab, which will investigate treatments and cures for infectious diseases, is considered "a cornerstone of the Bush administration's campaign to prepare for potential acts of bioterrorism." The novel aspect of the lab, according to news reports, is its extraordinary safety measures, reported to be "unlike anything Boston's medical community has ever seen." The doctor who has been selected as lead investigator for the new lab said that he is "proud to...safely find treatments and cures" for infectious disease. Meanwhile, community activists have opposed the construction on the grounds that situating the new lab in an urban setting is unsafe. In words typical of activist critique these days, the director of the Council for Responsible Genetics stated, "Instead of making us safer, the presence of such a facility could make us more of a target for terrorist attacks."

The federal government has vowed to fight US decline in the sciences, hoping to shore up the nation's position at the cutting edge of scientific advancement. But allocating crucial federal funding for scientific research on the basis of hair-brained dragon-slaying campaigns is a sure way to grind US science into the ground. The fact that community groups have fully coopted Bush's security language, articulating their opposition solely in terms of risk and security, makes their position even more fantastical than the administration's. This is a recipe for bad science and bad politics.