PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE
The Future of Biosafety and Biosecurity
in the Public Health Laboratory
by Michael Marsico, senior specialist, Biosafety and Biosecurity
In 2015, 64 state, local and territorial
public health laboratories (PHLs) were part
of the three-year, $24 million US Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) Epidemiology and Laboratory
Capacity Domestic Ebola Supplemental
for Enhanced Laboratory Biosafety
and Biosecurity Capacity cooperative
agreement (ELC Ebola Biosafety
Agreement). The agreement was designed
to enhance PHL biosafety capacity and
improve coordination and outreach with
clinical laboratories. With assistance from
APHL over the span of the agreement,
PHLs were able to not only enhance their
internal biosafety programs, but also
provide biosafety guidance to clinical
laboratories.
For jurisdictions that requested an
extension of the three-year funding, CDC
approved this requested and laboratories
continued their efforts through March
2019. With the CDC ELC Cooperative
Agreement ending this year, laboratories
are vulnerable to losing their biosafety
officers and the biosafety capacity
achieved since 2015. These laboratories
rely heavily on federal funding to sustain
their biosafety activities, especially
training and outreach activities to clinical
labs. Four laboratories look towards
the future.
between the state PHL and sentinel
clinical laboratories. Our budget was
adjusted to accommodate a BSO position
going forward. I’m recognized for an
impact on safety awareness in this lab
and across Utah’s hospital laboratories
and that is expressed in a promising
future for the position.”
Former Deputy Laboratory Director
Michael Stevenson, PhD
Idaho Bureau of Laboratories (IBL)
What gap(s) do you believe still need to
be addressed in regards to biosafety and
biosecurity?
Bryan Burk
Biosafety Officer William Bryan Burk
Utah Public Health Laboratory
What is one key accomplishment in
biosafety and biosecurity you are proud
to share?
“I’ve produced a weekly newsletter that
has vitalized communication between
our facility and the sentinel clinical
labs we serve. By being in a position to
propagate a message of biosafety to my
clinical laboratory partners, I promote the
significance of risk awareness and the
importance of implementing mitigation
to the betterment of public health overall.
I would like to note the training and
onboarding provided to me by UPHL,
APHL, CDC, the Laboratory Response
Network and Sean Kaufman’s program
have given me an understanding and
insight that 35+ years of laboratory bench
experience never even touched. With the
biosafety program, a light has been cast
upon an aspect of the profession long kept
in the dark. I now have a clearer, focused
perspective about the risk, consequence
and mitigation of biological hazards.”
“There is still a gap in having Division 6.2
Infectious Substances properly packaged
and shipped according to Department of
Transportation regulations. We continue
to see specimens sent to our state PHL
that are not properly packaged—this
is more noticeable in samples sent by
veterinarians of animal heads or bats for
rabies testing. We recognize that outreach
is needed for vets to learn how to properly
package and ship Division 6.2 Infectious
Substances.”
What is the future plan for biosafety for
your public health laboratory?
“We have been fortunate to have Hospital
Preparedness Program funding for these
workshops over the past several years.
With the loss of the ELC Ebola Biosafety
What is the future plan for biosafety for
your public health laboratory?
“I am fortunate to have leadership that
values my input and outreach, and my
efforts have helped to bridge the gap
Michael Stevenson
30
LAB MATTERS Spring 2019
PublicHealthLabs
@APHL
APHL.org