By Till Kaeslin and Alana Levene
Boston City Councilor Tito Jackson called for a ban on all Biosafety Level 4 research in Boston during a press conference Wednesday morning. Jackson then brought the issue up later that afternoon at a City Council meeting, where he introduced preventative legislation.
Jackson’s push follows the Centers for Disease Control’s clearing of the Boston University Medical Campus’ National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratories to operate a Biosafety Level 4 laboratory in December. The lab would test virulent organisms like Ebola and smallpox, according to a press release from Jackson’s office.
Jackson, who is running for mayor of Boston, denounced the BUMC’s plans and said it would be dangerous to the area.
“This is reckless,” Jackson said at the press conference. “Environmentally, it has a direct impact on communities of color in the city of Boston and it should not be moved forward.”
Jackson criticized the biolab’s location, as it was built in a lower-income area with a high concentration of minority residents.
“It’s taking advantage of people in the neighborhood who should be taken up and not torn down,” Jackson said in an interview with The Daily Free Press.
Jackson said he is skeptical of the CDC’s ability to safely contain virulent matter.
“The CDC has had many problems in recent years,” Jackson said. “It bothers me, scares me and raises the alarms that the organization that should be regulating had to close down their own labs because they weren’t following their own procedures.”
In place of the experiments, Jackson said the BUMC should redirect its focus toward tackling health issues more relevant to Boston residents.
“We need to deal with health care disparity, we need to deal with the fact that diabetes kills people in our community, that there is a 33-year difference in life expectancy between Back Bay and Roxbury,” Jackson said. “We need to deal with issues that are imminently killing people in our neighborhoods and community.”
Mel King, a professor in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was one of the first active opposers of the biolab. King told The Daily Free Press the lab should be moved out of Boston and away from a large population.
“What I’ve been trying to get understood by the mayor is that technology that exists allows us to link up with other places that are doing it and they can do the research with them by electronics,” King said. “So I don’t understand this need to do it here, other than ego tripping instead of understanding that it was not approved by the community.”
King said the decision to establish the biolab within Boston did not take into account residents’ concerns.
“They’ve tried to skirt every aspect of what would be decent and respectful of the people in the community that is going to be affected,” King said. “The factor of the matter is that it was handled with no respect for the people in the community.”
BU spokesperson Colin Riley wrote in an email that Jackson’s decision to challenge the biolab in City Council is not a new or surprising development.
“This issue has been raised before and it was soundly defeated the last time it came before the Council,” Riley wrote.
Riley wrote NEIDL is “the most vetted facility in the country,” affirming its safety.
“[NEIDL’s] right to operate has been supported by state and federal courts, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Academy of Sciences, a National Institutes of Health Blue Ribbon panel, and various state and local agencies,” Riley wrote.
Michael Siegel, a professor in the BU School of Public Health, also mentioned the extreme vetting process the lab has undergone. Siegel, who is trained in epidemiology, said he thinks the vetting planned for the lab is appropriate to ensure its safety.
However, Siegel wrote he does not think the lab’s safety is the central issue up for debate. Instead, Siegel wrote the lab’s setting raises contentious issues of racial equity and environmental justice.
“I would certainly not want a Level 4 facility in my neighborhood, so why should we force the residents of Roxbury and the lower South End to have to do so?” Siegel wrote in an email. “And why is it that these types of facilities always seem to be cited in poorer neighborhoods and in neighborhoods of color?”
Siegel questioned the ethical implications of situating the lab in a socioeconomically disadvantaged area.
“When we expose people of color disproportionately to high-level risks and preferentially site facilities like this in their neighborhoods, how can we claim that we are showing a regard for racial equity and justice?” Siegel wrote.
Sarah Wu and Carina Imbornone contributed to the reporting of this article.
