E-Mail This Article to a Friend TOXIC RELATIONSHIP Biosafety-lab opponents forge ahead BY DEIRDRE FULTON

Although Boston University has proceeded with plans to construct a national biocontainment laboratory with $128 million in federal funds in the South End, the project still has plenty of enemies seeking to block final approval. The lab is part of BioSquare Phase II, a joint project of Boston University, Boston University Medical Center (BUMC), and Boston Medical Center (BMC), and has generated significant controversy since it was proposed. Now, anti-lab activists hope that new information will dissuade local and national agencies from giving BU a green light to forge ahead. At the very least, opponents of the lab are asking for open debate and answers to lingering questions.

From the beginning, some members of the predominantly minority local community and city officials expressed fear that placing a biosafety level-four lab — one that deals with the world’s most dangerous toxic agents — in the middle of an urban area was too risky. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases awarded BUMC the funding to build the lab, which would be one of two in the country and part of the federal government’s effort to study and combat emerging infectious diseases, including bioterrorism agents. The BSL-4 lab would be housed in a larger facility that would also contain BSL-2 and BSL-3 labs.

Critics such as Tomas Aguilar, community organizer for Alternatives for Community and Environment (ACE), the Roxbury-based group leading the fight against the lab, have long accused BU of withholding critical details, such as exactly what kind of research will be conducted in the lab, and who will work there. But these days, Aguilar and other lab opponents are focusing on two additional issues that have come to light.

One involves the use of recombinant DNA (rDNA) in the lab. According to the Boston Public Health Commission’s Board of Health and Hospitals, "RDNA use requiring containment defined by the Guidelines as ‘BL4’ shall not be permitted in the City of Boston." BUMC spokeswoman Ellen Berlin says scientists will work with rDNA (created by splicing together strains of DNA from two different organisms) only at the lower-level, less-dangerous labs, which is not banned in the guidelines. Scientists affiliated with ACE counter that BU will not be able to do the kind of research the level-four lab is intended for without using rDNA. The health commission has reactivated a long-dormant subcommittee to investigate whether the lab’s use of rDNA would breach the regulations.

Critics also charge that, according to records obtained by ACE, BU’s medical campus has repeatedly violated environmental, health, and safety regulations in its existing labs. Among other things, the records show that BU violated limits on toxic discharge 46 times since 2000, filed certain biological-research activity reports more than six months late, and received 27 enforcement notices and orders from various health-and-safety agencies since 2001.

"It raises issues of whether the council would want BU not working with even more dangerous materials," says City Councilor Chuck Turner, in whose district the lab would sit. Turner is an outspoken opponent of BU’s proposal. "I think we’re in a stronger position primarily because we’re getting into the heart of what they’re actually going to be doing." Turner and at-large councilors Maura Hennigan and Felix Arroyo have proposed an ordinance that would ban BSL-4 labs in the city. They are waiting to consider it until they hear from the health commission’s subcommittee.

BU, in the meantime, is making its way through various agency-approval processes. It has issued revised environmental-impact reports to the Boston Redevelopment Agency (BRA) and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; the public has until November 8 to comment on those reports. BU must also file a report with the US Environmental Protection Agency, which will be followed by another public-comment period. (Other components of BioSquare Phase II, like a parking garage and another research building, have met with little debate.)

Berlin says the project is getting "much support" from the community, while Aguilar claims BU "controlled every aspect" of a BRA hearing held two weeks ago. "It’s a sham," he says. Representatives from ACE were given short notice about the hearing, according to Aguilar, and were first told they could prepare a PowerPoint presentation and then told they couldn’t. Meanwhile, officials from BU came ready with a multimedia presentation and a slew of supporters including union workers and local residents.

"They’re pitting the community against each other," Aguilar says, describing how BU "trotted out people of color" to bolster their case. He takes particular issue with BU’s claim that the project will create many jobs for the community: "Most people in the community will never get jobs there unless they’re a janitor."

After meeting with representatives from ACE and the NAACP, Councilor Mike Ross agreed to act as a mediator between the groups and BU. Ross, who initially wrote a letter of support for the lab but now may have some reservations, brought ACE’s concerns to BU and is waiting to hear a response, according to Ross’s chief of staff, Jerome Smith.

But BU says it has been transparent throughout the process. "We have had more than 100 community meetings," Berlin said. "We have been exceedingly open and willing to discuss with the community." BUMC has trotted out a brand-new Web site and ads on the T, presumably to swing public opinion in its direction.

As all these loose ends hang, waiting to be tied into a comprehensive decision, the different factions wait too. "We may say in the end, ‘Yeah, you’ve convinced us,’" Aguilar says. "They may make fools of us, but until they do that we’re going to keep on with this."