Abstract
The proposed construction of NIH-NIAID biodefense labs provided an opportunity to study real time developments in the public review process for high-level biocontainment facilities and compare them with literature findings on other biocontainment labs and complex science/technology projects. The goals of this study were to examine the types of issues and concerns raised in the review process, evaluate the importance of different factors in the public debate, and understand what features, if any, arose in situations with and without controversies. Based on an analysis of environmental impact documents, detailed timelines and media and Internet communications, it was possible to identify common issues and features associated with the lab reviews. Issues of trust and transparency, concerns about secret, or classified research, undisclosed accidents and a lack of due process were repeatedly found in controversial situations. The lessons learned from this study are relevant to current and future biocontainment projects, and highlight the importance of developing trust, implementing comprehensive early proactive risk communication plans, and maintaining open communication even after operations begin. Current governmental restrictions on transparency and openness associated with biodefense and terrorism make communication increasingly difficult, and have implications for long-term public trust and perceptions about biosecurity.