ISSN: 1080-6059
Giuseppe Ippolito,
Carla Nisii, Antonino Di Caro, David
Brown, Robin Gopal, Roger Hewson, Graham Lloyd, Stephan Gunther, Markus
Eickmann, Ali Mirazimi, Tuija Koivula, Marie-Claude Georges Courbot, Hervé Raoul,
and Maria R. Capobianchi
Author affiliations: National Institute for Infectious
Diseases, Rome, Italy (G. Ippolito, C. Nisii, A. Di Caro, M.R. Capobianchi);
Health Protection Agency, London, UK (D. Brown, R. Gopal); Health Protection
Agency, Salisbury, UK (R. Hewson, G. Lloyd); Bernhard Nocht Institute for
Tropical Medicine, Hamburg, Germany (S. Gunther); Institute of Virology,
Marburg, Germany (M. Eickmann); Swedish Institute for Infectious Disease
Control, Solna, Sweden (A. Mirazimi, T. Koivula); and French National Institute
for Health and Medical Research, Lyon, France (M.-C. Georges Courbot, H. Raoul)
Suggested citation for this article
To the Editor: Recently, the directors of Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) laboratories in the United States published their views of the requirement of having >2 persons present at all times while biological work is undertaken in a BSL-4 laboratory (1). They concluded that safety and security would be better assured in some situations by video monitoring systems rather than by the presence of a fellow scientist. As members of the European Network of Biosafety Level-4 laboratories (Euronet-P4) who have developed guidelines in this area (2–4), we discussed the article during a recent network meeting. Biosafety and biosecurity are the major concerns for all involved in BSL-4 activities, and we support the authors' initiative and broadly agree with their position. The consensus among European BSL-4 experts is that, in the interest of safety, standard practice should be for all laboratories to perform a risk assessment before any activity is undertaken. This preliminary assessment is the best way to determine procedures to be used, including whether 2 persons should work together as part of laboratory procedure. A 2-person rule is inappropriate simply because the best approach is not to have inflexible rules that are not objectively assessed according to laboratory-specific circumstances.
Surveillance video monitoring and data storing have their place in protecting laboratory facilities from unauthorized access and theft of materials, but their effectiveness for ensuring proper handling of pathogens is quite limited. Finally, we agree with the authors that both biosafety and biosecurity must be founded on careful selection and monitoring of staff, without which even the most sophisticated of control systems would fail.
Ippolito G, Nisii C, Di Caro A, Brown D, Gopal R, Hewson R, et al. European perspective of 2-person rule for Biosafety Level 4 laboratories [letter]. Emerg Infect Dis [serial on the Internet]. 2009 Nov [date cited]. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/EID/content/15/11/1858a.htm
DOI: 10.3201/eid1511.091134
Please use the form below to submit correspondence to the authors or contact them at the following address:
Giuseppe Ippolito, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, "L. Spallanzani," 292 Via Portuense, I-00149 Rome, Italy; email: ippolito@inmi.it
Contact us at eideditor@cdc.gov
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
This page posted October 23, 2009
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333, U.S.A
Tel: (404) 639-3311 / Public Inquiries: (404) 639-3534 / (800) 311-3435