CDC fails at Texas A&M -- more Federal Government failure

[Publius]

CDC failed to find worst A&M lab problems | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Latest News

For three years, inspectors from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found warning signs in Texas A&M University's biodefense program – everything from unauthorized lab workers with access to dangerous agents to problems with how pathogens were stored.

But the federal agency's annual inspections, obtained by The Dallas Morning News last week, failed to turn up cases of human illness and exposure to some of the world's most infectious diseases. The problems weren't revealed until a persistent bioweapons activist and the news media began to investigate.

CDC officials say they responded immediately to news this summer that A&M had failed to report one illness and several other exposures to dangerous pathogens. They halted the university's federally funded "select agent" research, sent 18 investigators to the campus and issued an extensive report on biosafety failures at A&M.

But they've offered no explanation for their own oversights, raising serious questions about how well the agency polices select agent research at nearly 350 other U.S. labs it monitors and whether the public might be at risk. These and other biosafety concerns will be the subject of a congressional hearing in Washington next month.

"The [federal] biodefense program has cropped up all over the country, and we have far more people handling biological weapons agents than at any other time," said Edward Hammond, director of the Sunshine Project, the Austin-based organization that first revealed the A&M breaches. "What happened at Texas A&M makes me very suspicious of the quality level of any of the inspections."

Texas A&M Chancellor Mike McKinney, who has accused the CDC of "piling on" at his university, said he doesn't fault the agency for "not catching every detail" in their earlier inspections.

"It was our responsibility," Dr. McKinney said. "But people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

CDC spokeswoman Bernadette Burden said she can't speak to any allegations of the agency "sharing the blame" with A&M's National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease Defense, established with an $18 million federal homeland security grant.

"This is an ongoing investigation," she said. "We're working closely with the university to resolve these issues."

Security mishaps

During visits to A&M in 2004, 2005 and 2006, CDC inspectors repeatedly found security mishaps that troubled them: Unauthorized workers with access to infectious diseases. Improper storage of dangerous agents and infected animals. And inadequate security plans, training procedures and record-keeping.

Investigators also reported sanitation problems in their inspection reports – everything from an apparent insect infestation to lab workers failing to wash their hands or remove their lab coats immediately after experiments.

But they didn't find records of a 2004 accident in which a worker was stuck with a needle tainted with Brucella, a bacterium that can cause an infectious disease – an incident the university did not report.

Nor did investigators determine that unauthorized experiments with that agent were being conducted in university labs.

And they didn't discover the Brucella infection of a lab worker not approved to work with the agent, though the woman was home sick with symptoms of the disease during the CDC's 2006 inspection.

The university didn't try to clue them in. A&M failed to report the February 2006 Brucella illness and several exposures to Q fever – a disease characterized by fever, headaches and sore throat – that occurred later that year to the agency until April 2007, and then only after Mr. Hammond's group applied pressure by demanding public records on the incidents.

"What's pretty clear is that the public information act, not the inspections, is what has alerted the government to the accidents that have occurred," Mr. Hammond said.

Many of the problems the CDC did find during its inspections appear to have recurred from year to year, despite repeated correspondence between the university and the agency indicating the lapses were being addressed. None of those mishaps resulted in a financial penalty or probation for A&M. And the problems continued.

In the year after the CDC's 2006 inspection, A&M lost track of a mouse infected with Q Fever, which humans can contract from animals. Two outside health care officials crossed paths with a Brucella researcher before the researcher had decontaminated after an experiment. And yet another lab worker reported high levels of Q fever antibodies.

The first time the CDC addressed any of these security breaches was in a non-routine inspection this April, conducted in response to Texas A&M reporting the Brucella incident more than a year late.

But what the three inspectors dispatched to the university in April found paled in comparison to what an 18-person team of federal agents uncovered in an emergency July inspection: several missing vials of Brucella, and at least seven cases in which Texas A&M allowed unauthorized access to select agents.

Program on hold

As a result, the university's select agent program remains on hold and two A&M research officials have resigned. The inspector general for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, who levies financial penalties of up to $500,000 for biodefense security breaches, has not yet ruled on the A&M case.

A&M officials, who hope to have their program up and running again by the end of the year, attribute the extensive July inspection to nonstop media scrutiny of the biodefense problems and the perception that the CDC had not taken the security breaches seriously.

Although Dr. McKinney doesn't play down the biosafety problems at A&M, he said his university has become the scapegoat in a field where "nobody else has a clean record either." Wherever the CDC brings 18 inspectors into any lab setting, he said, they're going to find problems.

If serious security breaches are common at other select agent labs, they're rarely being reported – or the CDC isn't finding them. The agency has official records of only 15 possible exposure incidents since the beginning of 2006, none of which resulted in infection or illness.

Contract inspectors

CDC officials say that their biosafety inspections are comprehensive and that investigators use a checklist of nationally recognized safety standards to examine the physical state of the lab and interview lab personnel.

While the agency does contract out with a private company for lab inspectors, they say, all of the inspectors follow instructions from and are monitored by government employees. The number of inspectors and duration of the trip depends on the size and complexity of the lab, agency officials said, and whether there have been deficiencies detected in the past.

In the face of the security revelations, Texas A&M officials have publicly acknowledged mistakes while continuing to defend the integrity of their program. But behind the scenes, some top university leaders appeared to be looking at the bright side, internal e-mails obtained by The News show.

"The lemonade to be made out of this bunch of lemons is that we use this as further leverage to gain administrative control over the research done by our faculty," Associate Executive Vice President G. Dan Parker III wrote in a July 3 message to university Interim President Eddie Davis and several other top officials. "At present it would seem that we have all of the risk and almost none of the control."

Note that is took a private organization investigating this before the CDC bothered to do anything about it. The CDC knew about numerous violations in the access to and handling of infectious disease spores and other biological agents, yet they didn't do ANYTHING about it. They didn't even bother to fine the A&M lab.

It both angers and scares me that these labs receive millions of tax dollars to do this research on dangerous biological agent, yet don't seem to be held to any standard of conduct and safety. Standards are in place, but if they aren't met nothing happens unless a private citizen or group raises a big enough stink to garner media attention.

Score one for private watchdog organizations, in my opinion the only group of people that REALLY try to protect us from poor conduct by these potentially epidemic-spreading labs; obviously the CDC doesn't feel it necessary to do so.

[6SpeedTA95]

aTm also failed at football last thursday

[WickedLou9]

It's not JUST a failure of government. IT was a failure of the private industry to properly police itself as well. The fact that these things even happen is an arguement for MORE government regulation.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

It's not JUST a failure of government. IT was a failure of the private industry to properly police itself as well. The fact that these things even happen is an arguement for MORE government regulation.

Actually no.

Texas A&M is a state owned school, doing research for the government using government funds, under regulations created by a government entity. Nowhere within the circle of screw-ups is private industry even involved.

It took a private organization outside of this government circle to bring to light these failings, both in adherence to and enforcement of regulations.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Publius

Actually no.

Texas A&M is a state owned school, doing research for the government using government funds, under regulations created by a government entity. Nowhere within the circle of screw-ups is private industry even involved.

It took a private organization outside of this government circle to bring to light these failings, both in adherence to and enforcement of regulations.

There are plenty of private organizations who have failed to police themselves just the same. This is not something that is peculiar to the government.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Publius

Actually no.

Texas A&M is a state owned school, doing research for the government using government funds, under regulations created by a government entity. Nowhere within the circle of screw-ups is private industry even involved.

It took a private organization outside of this government circle to bring to light these failings, both in adherence to and enforcement of regulations.

And your point? There are TONS of examples of private organizations messing up big time and the government stepping in, this could very well happen in the free market. All you've proven in this thread is that government messed something up, great, I think we all know government is incompetent, that does not mean we need a thinly veiled libertarian agenda to answer it.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

There are plenty of private organizations who have failed to police themselves just the same. This is not something that is peculiar to the government.

I'd appreciate if you provide examples of private organizations that deal with infectious disease not adhering to regulatory guidelines, being found out, and not only not receiving a fine but further not being punished in any way until after the fact when another organization brings it to light for the general public.

It isn't the fact that the guidelines weren't being followed that bothers me most, though that disturbs me greatly. It's the fact that it appears the CDC had no intention of punishing A&M or even investigating the NUMEROUS issues more deeply until after a private watchdog group brought the issue to light.

Mistakes are made, poor/dangerous business practices happen. But find me one private company that hasn't been fined or otherwise punished for it after the fact when a government regulatory agency found out. Why was A&M being treated differently? Why did it take a private organization shining light on this to break up the government-owned-and-operated circle jerk?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

And your point? There are TONS of examples of private organizations messing up big time and the government stepping in, this could very well happen in the free market. All you've proven in this thread is that government messed something up, great, I think we all know government is incompetent, that does not mean we need a thinly veiled libertarian agenda to answer it.

My issue isn't that they "messed up" ... My issue is that the CDC apparently had no intention of doing anything about it to this other government-funded organization until after a private watchdog brought it out very publicly.

If the CDC had found these sorts of violations in a private company that company would've been crucified. But with A&M it was just kind of brushed under the rug, "oh no big deal, they'll get it fixed eventually." No fines, no punishments of any kind.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Publius

I'd appreciate if you provide examples of private organizations that deal with infectious disease not adhering to regulatory guidelines, being found out, and not only not receiving a fine but further not being punished in any way until after the fact when another organization brings it to light for the general public.

It isn't the fact that the guidelines weren't being followed that bothers me most, though that disturbs me greatly. It's the fact that it appears the CDC had no intention of punishing A&M or even investigating the NUMEROUS issues more deeply until after a private watchdog group brought the issue to light.

Mistakes are made, poor/dangerous business practices happen. But find me one private company that hasn't been fined or otherwise punished for it after the fact when a government regulatory agency found out. Why was A&M being treated differently? Why did it take a private organization shining light on this to break up the government-owned-and-operated circle jerk?

The auto industry had been guilty of that sort of thing for years before consumer advocates like Ralph Nader did something to bring attention to it.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The auto industry had been guilty of that sort of thing for years before consumer advocates like Ralph Nader did something to bring attention to it.

And your proof that the government knowingly allowed it to happen with no punishments until after Nader pointed it out?

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Publius

My issue isn't that they "messed up" ... My issue is that the CDC apparently had no intention of doing anything about it to this other government-funded organization until after a private watchdog brought it out very publicly.

If the CDC had found these sorts of violations in a private company that company would've been crucified. But with A&M it was just kind of brushed under the rug, "oh no big deal, they'll get it fixed eventually." No fines, no punishments of any kind.

I doubt that would be true. Companies that do work for the defense industry get a pass. You think Lockheed Martin hasn't messed up once or twice and gotten away with it? Hey they are building military technology, punishing them means that they won't be able to produce weaponry for us.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Publius

And your proof that the government knowingly allowed it to happen with no punishments until after Nader pointed it out?

This is public knowledge. Do I also need to provide you proof that the world is round?

Unsafe at Any Speed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have not heard of this?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I doubt that would be true. Companies that do work for the defense industry get a pass. You think Lockheed Martin hasn't messed up once or twice and gotten away with it? Hey they are building military technology, punishing them means that they won't be able to produce weaponry for us.

That delves into a whole different can of worms related to the military-industrial complex, but at the same time more proves my point. Organizations, be they public OR private, that work directly for or with the government get a hell of a lot more leeway to fuck up than other private organizations. How is that sort of preferential treatment an acceptable usage of government power?

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Publius

If the CDC had found these sorts of violations in a private company that company would've been crucified.

You don't know that to be true, you have to know the many instances in general when private companies have done some bad shit and they get away with it - the government either turns the other way or give them a slap on the wrist.

Private companies get no sympathy, they are just as bad as government and worse so in many respects

[Publius]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

This is public knowledge. Do I also need to provide you proof that the world is round?

Unsafe at Any Speed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have not heard of this?

Where does it say that the government saw this happening and just gave the auto industry a wink and said, "it's okay, we'll let you break the rules" ? Resisting the implementation of new rules and regulations is NOT the same thing as disregarding existent rules and regulations.

On a tangent unrelated to this thread, the entire thesis of Nader's advocacy on that subject has been called into question in years since, considering that vehicular deaths didn't decrease at any greater clip afterwards than they already were before that publication.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

You don't know that to be true, you have to know the many instances in general when private companies have done some bad shit and they get away with it - the government either turns the other way or give them a slap on the wrist.

Private companies get no sympathy, they are just as bad as government and worse so in many respects

I'm not asking for "sympathy" to private companies, I'm asking for equal treatment under the law for private companies that don't use Federal funds and private companies or public organizations that do.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Publius

Where does it say that the government saw this happening and just gave the auto industry a wink and said, "it's okay, we'll let you break the rules" ? Resisting the implementation of new rules and regulations is NOT the same thing as disregarding existent rules and regulations.

On a tangent unrelated to this thread, the entire thesis of Nader's advocacy on that subject has been called into question in years since, considering that vehicular deaths didn't decrease at any greater clip afterwards than they already were before that publication.

The government turned a blind eye because the auto industry is big business and provides a ton of tax revenue. They have lobbiests with alot of clout in washington. Don't tell me for a second that the government didn't give them a pass. That's just naieve, either that or you are simply taking the position because it's convenient to your arguement.