Historic Biosafety Law Advances with Overwhelming Bipartisan Support!

The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC) took a monumental step by passing Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) Risky Research Review Act (S. 4667) with an 8-1 vote. The overwhelming bipartisan support for this bill sends a clear message: the era of unchecked risky research is coming to an end.

For more on this historic development, read Gabrielle M. Etzel’s article in the Washington Examiner. Below is footage from today’s meeting when Committee Chairman Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) announced the bill's passage.

Biosafety Now played a key role in rallying public support for this bill. Yesterday, Board Members Jay Bhattacharya and Bryce Nickels published an op-ed in Real Clear Politics endorsing the bill, which was later cited by The New York Post editorial board in their endorsement of the legislation this morning. In addition, statements from five members of Biosafety Now’s leadership team were included in the committee’s press release, highlighting our unwavering commitment to this cause.

“The Risky Research Review Act is a great step forward toward the goal of protecting the American people from scientists conducting the kinds of dangerous experiments that likely led to the covid pandemic. If the bill is passed, scientists will no longer have carte blanche to regulate themselves to sign off on such experiments. It is far past time for the people who pay for the scientists’ work to have a voice in the risks they take on the peoples’ behalf.”

Jay Bhattacharya, M.D., PH.D., Professor of Health Policy, Stanford University

“I have closely reviewed the legislative proposal, and I strongly support the legislative proposal. The gaps in current US oversight of research on potential pandemic pathogens place the US at risk of research-related pandemics, with medical, economic, and national-security impacts as disruptive and damaging as, or even more disruptive and damaging than, those of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Addressing the gaps in oversight is essential and urgent. The legislative proposal sets forth an approach to close the gaps in oversight and, appropriately, addresses only the small subset of biomedical research that poses highest risk (with definitions tailored to cover less than 0.1% of biomedical research) and balances the need for strengthened oversight with the need not to constrain biomedical research that could provide positive medical, industrial, or national-security value.  The proposal sets forth an approach that will close the gaps with minimal costs and minimal adverse impacts. Thank you in advance for your leadership in considering and approving this legislation.”

Richard H. Ebright, Board of Governors Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Rutgers University

“Senator Paul’s legislation to establish the Risky Research Review Board is both necessary and urgent. It addresses major shortcomings in both the current guidelines for oversight of high-risk pathogen research and the new guidelines scheduled to take effect in 2025. Critically, the legislation would replace decades of self-regulation with an independent oversight mechanism for federally funded high-risk pathogen research, the first of its kind. This is much-needed, common-sense legislation that, unlike the existing guidelines and those scheduled to take effect in 2025, will safeguard the public from the threat of lab-generated pandemics.”

Bryce E. Nickels, Professor of Genetics, Rutgers University

“This is a very important bill which when implemented will ensure national security is prioritized when making US life science funding decisions. If we had this bill in place ten years ago, we could have prevented the Covid pandemic.”

Dr. Robert Redfield, M.D., Former Director (2018-2021), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

“Modern genetics holds phenomenal investigational power. Used responsibly it bodes well. The 21st century has seen the generation of novel human pathogens anticipated to spark a pandemic, or the resurrection of extinct viruses like Spanish flu. The benefits of this work have been grossly overrated while the risks have been simultaneously underrated. Self-governance has failed. This US generated work can be used irresponsibly by a swath of groups as it is freely available on the web. Populations, health care infrastructures and national security are challenged by what is low-cost science. Accordingly, an oversight committee independent of the NIH and backed up by law is necessary to review such work and ascertain what can and cannot be done. The Risky Research Review Act provides the elements to achieve these goals. Life scientists would do well to work with Senator Paul to forge a code of conduct which protects freedom of enquiry while showing responsibility to society that finances research.”

Simon Wain-Hobson, Emeritus Professor of Virology, Pasteur Institute, Paris