Read about what local and national news outlets are reporting about NBAF for Kansas.
View by Year: 2008 | 2007
08.10.08 - High technology, training make biocontainment research safe High Plains Journal Op-EdScott Rusk, director of Pat Roberts Hall, home to K-State's Biosecurity Research InstituteThe prospect of a high-level animal disease lab being built in Manhattan can seem daunting, particularly for those not familiar with the technological safeguards of the facility, operational approaches for safety and the numerous precautions employed by the researchers who work with pathogens. Questions surrounding the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility have ranged from what researchers will be studying to how safe such labs are for the community. Since K-State has experience building and commissioning a like facility, we want to answer those questions. K-State's BRI--Biosecurity Research Institute--is a biosafety level-3 biocontainment research and training facility that can accommodate high-consequence pathogen research on food animals, food crops and food processing under one roof. The BRI, in Pat Roberts Hall, is equipped with multiple waste treatment, air handling, and heating and cooling systems. All air leaving the biocontainment areas is filtered so it is free of infectious agents. All water used is heat and pressure treated to destroy infectious materials. All materials leaving the biocontainment areas are sterilized, and workers themselves go through a number of decontamination steps to prevent the release of infectious materials. To ensure that biocontainment is maintained, uninterrupted power is provided to the BRI from two sources. Should those both go down, a diesel-powered generator would kick on. Just like electricity, steam and heating capabilities are very important for the safe operation of a biocontainment facility. Without steam, critical sterilization equipment could not be used. The BRI has six high-pressure boilers, two more than required. The boilers are fueled by natural gas and would also switch over to a reserve diesel tank should that fuel source be lost. These backup systems ensure continual and reliable operation. Before active research can take place, all operating systems must be extensively evaluated so that the building's performance can be predicted. The very same technology and standards will be used at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. In addition to technology, workers at biocontainment labs across the nation are trained in not only how to protect themselves, but how to secure specimens in case of an emergency. Awareness combined with in-depth knowledge of what's being studied go a long way to reduce the likelihood of accidents. Can events happen that result in the release of infectious material? While highly unlikely, such a scenario is not impossible. That's why new biocontainment facilities are designed and built with the safeguards above. Just like using a seatbelt and having airbags reduce the risk of injury in a car accident, safety practices, proper equipment and training help make biocontainment research safe. The diseases to be studied at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility affect agricultural animals, the nation's food supply and the public. As it stands today, the nation is not prepared to meet such threats. Safe research on animal diseases is desperately needed, which is what the facility will deliver. To not pursue this mission puts Americans at further risk.
High Plains Journal Op-EdScott Rusk, director of Pat Roberts Hall, home to K-State's Biosecurity Research InstituteThe prospect of a high-level animal disease lab being built in Manhattan can seem daunting, particularly for those not familiar with the technological safeguards of the facility, operational approaches for safety and the numerous precautions employed by the researchers who work with pathogens.
Questions surrounding the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility have ranged from what researchers will be studying to how safe such labs are for the community. Since K-State has experience building and commissioning a like facility, we want to answer those questions.
K-State's BRI--Biosecurity Research Institute--is a biosafety level-3 biocontainment research and training facility that can accommodate high-consequence pathogen research on food animals, food crops and food processing under one roof.
The BRI, in Pat Roberts Hall, is equipped with multiple waste treatment, air handling, and heating and cooling systems. All air leaving the biocontainment areas is filtered so it is free of infectious agents. All water used is heat and pressure treated to destroy infectious materials. All materials leaving the biocontainment areas are sterilized, and workers themselves go through a number of decontamination steps to prevent the release of infectious materials.
To ensure that biocontainment is maintained, uninterrupted power is provided to the BRI from two sources. Should those both go down, a diesel-powered generator would kick on. Just like electricity, steam and heating capabilities are very important for the safe operation of a biocontainment facility. Without steam, critical sterilization equipment could not be used. The BRI has six high-pressure boilers, two more than required. The boilers are fueled by natural gas and would also switch over to a reserve diesel tank should that fuel source be lost. These backup systems ensure continual and reliable operation.
Before active research can take place, all operating systems must be extensively evaluated so that the building's performance can be predicted. The very same technology and standards will be used at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility.
In addition to technology, workers at biocontainment labs across the nation are trained in not only how to protect themselves, but how to secure specimens in case of an emergency. Awareness combined with in-depth knowledge of what's being studied go a long way to reduce the likelihood of accidents.
Can events happen that result in the release of infectious material? While highly unlikely, such a scenario is not impossible. That's why new biocontainment facilities are designed and built with the safeguards above. Just like using a seatbelt and having airbags reduce the risk of injury in a car accident, safety practices, proper equipment and training help make biocontainment research safe.
The diseases to be studied at the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility affect agricultural animals, the nation's food supply and the public. As it stands today, the nation is not prepared to meet such threats. Safe research on animal diseases is desperately needed, which is what the facility will deliver. To not pursue this mission puts Americans at further risk.
08.04.08 - A win for the Kansas bid Manhattan Mercury editorialBackers of the effort to land a $450 million bio-defense laboratory in Manhattan ought to be feeling pretty good about the results of a public meeting Thursday at KSU.They outnumbered and out-verbalized the opponents by better than a two-to-one margin. Also significant was the fact that while proponents evidenced a strong organization — led by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius — opponents showed little organization of any kind. Most seemed lightly prepared, among them one speaker who decried the absence of public notice concerning the meeting.The absence of organized opposition juxtaposed against endorsements from a broad array of elected and other public officials must have underscored to DHS officials the claims of proponents that this area is solidly behind the NBAF.Of the various opposition claims, the strongest is the argument that the impact of a tornado striking the building is not proven. The plausibility of an EF5 direct hit is a lot greater in the wake of June's events. Nothing in the draft environmental impact statement credibly establishes that the facility could withstand an EF5. That isn't to say it couldn't; it is to say the report hasn't put the matter to rest. In the wake of the suicide of a scientist who was a suspect in the 2002 anthrax deaths, the notion of a rogue scientist creating mischief — however remote — also cannot be dismissed. Of course that concern can't be dismissed on an island, either.The least impressive opposition claim is that siting the NBAF on Plum Island is a better idea than putting it anywhere on the mainland. This Medieval "moat mentality" affords too great a reliance on three miles of water — over which mosquitoes can fly — and too little on either decades of safety advances or the obstacles posed to collaborative research by an island site. Opponents are wasting their time pushing Plum Island because DHS already recognizes the inefficiency of water as a germanic Maginot Line, and isn't about to spend a lot more money than it would have to lay out at any other site to purchase false protection.Against that level of opposition argument, the better informed proponents pretty much had an open field Thursday. They were able to make the case that a Manhattan NBAF is far better positioned than any other location to avail itself of research collaborations and other venues of professional-academic knowledge. They could and often did tout K-State's international reputation for food science expertise. They could argue without fear of refutation that the NBAF would work best at a campus setting, of which KSU is one of only two under consideration.They could and did go to great pains to set a welcoming tone for NBAF, a message that could not have been lost on a DHS team newly arrived from Butner, N.C., where a similar hearing two days earlier ran into unrelenting hostility.None of this ensures that the NBAF will be coming here. But the upshot of Thursday is that Manhattan remains on the shortening list of legitimate contenders.
Manhattan Mercury editorialBackers of the effort to land a $450 million bio-defense laboratory in Manhattan ought to be feeling pretty good about the results of a public meeting Thursday at KSU.They outnumbered and out-verbalized the opponents by better than a two-to-one margin. Also significant was the fact that while proponents evidenced a strong organization — led by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius — opponents showed little organization of any kind. Most seemed lightly prepared, among them one speaker who decried the absence of public notice concerning the meeting.The absence of organized opposition juxtaposed against endorsements from a broad array of elected and other public officials must have underscored to DHS officials the claims of proponents that this area is solidly behind the NBAF.Of the various opposition claims, the strongest is the argument that the impact of a tornado striking the building is not proven. The plausibility of an EF5 direct hit is a lot greater in the wake of June's events. Nothing in the draft environmental impact statement credibly establishes that the facility could withstand an EF5. That isn't to say it couldn't; it is to say the report hasn't put the matter to rest. In the wake of the suicide of a scientist who was a suspect in the 2002 anthrax deaths, the notion of a rogue scientist creating mischief — however remote — also cannot be dismissed. Of course that concern can't be dismissed on an island, either.The least impressive opposition claim is that siting the NBAF on Plum Island is a better idea than putting it anywhere on the mainland. This Medieval "moat mentality" affords too great a reliance on three miles of water — over which mosquitoes can fly — and too little on either decades of safety advances or the obstacles posed to collaborative research by an island site. Opponents are wasting their time pushing Plum Island because DHS already recognizes the inefficiency of water as a germanic Maginot Line, and isn't about to spend a lot more money than it would have to lay out at any other site to purchase false protection.Against that level of opposition argument, the better informed proponents pretty much had an open field Thursday. They were able to make the case that a Manhattan NBAF is far better positioned than any other location to avail itself of research collaborations and other venues of professional-academic knowledge. They could and often did tout K-State's international reputation for food science expertise. They could argue without fear of refutation that the NBAF would work best at a campus setting, of which KSU is one of only two under consideration.They could and did go to great pains to set a welcoming tone for NBAF, a message that could not have been lost on a DHS team newly arrived from Butner, N.C., where a similar hearing two days earlier ran into unrelenting hostility.None of this ensures that the NBAF will be coming here. But the upshot of Thursday is that Manhattan remains on the shortening list of legitimate contenders.
08.01.08 - Kansas makes pitch for lab on animal disease threats By Jason GertzenKansas City Star MANHATTAN, Kan. | Everybody gathered here Thursday agreed on the need for a new high-tech laboratory to help protect the nation’s health and food supply. The big unanswered question is where to build it. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and researchers, public officials and business leaders urged federal officials to pick a spot on the campus of Kansas State University for the new $500 million complex. “It’s long past time for our nation to recognize serious animal disease threats” by building a modern facility equipped to develop new treatments and tests, Sebelius told leaders with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies. Federal officials are traveling across the country to gather comments and questions from members of each community selected as a finalist for the proposed National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. Comments presented during two sessions lasting more than two hours each were part of a process that will end later this year with selection of a winner. Other top contenders are in Texas, Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi. They are vying to replace an aging facility on Plum Island, N.Y., that conducts some types of this research. The lab works with some of the most contagious and potentially devastating maladies, including foot-and-mouth disease, classical swine fever, Rift Valley fever and Nipah virus. Some of the targeted pathogens pose the risk of wiping out exposed livestock herds and shutting down exports of U.S. agricultural products. Others are zoonotic, meaning they are diseases that can jump from animals to humans. The prospect of a local laboratory nestled in the heart of cattle country that would handle even small quantities of these viruses has drawn fierce opposition at some of the other sites. A handful of opponents surfaced Thursday in Manhattan. Officials attempted to reassure them that the laboratory would include multiple high-tech layers of protection and it would be operated by highly trained researchers. Still, said Donn Teske, president of the Kansas Farmers Union, the officials could not give him a 100 percent guarantee that human error or some other accident would never trigger an inadvertent release. “I am concerned for the safety of my family and the safety of my farm,” Teske said. Many of the strongest proponents for placing the facility in Kansas have been blinded by the potential prestige, jobs and economic benefits that would come to the state, Teske said. The best alternative is to build a new facility on Plum Island, which would provide natural barriers to any pathogens such as foot-and-mouth disease from easily spreading, he said. “I understand very much we need this facility and it needs to be somewhere,” Teske said. “It should be in a remote spot, preferably an island.” Not all livestock producers opposed the facility coming to Kansas. A vast majority of producers will see the benefit of having the facility in Manhattan and they also will accept the risks if they learn about the safeguards that federal officials will provide, said Tracy Brunner of Ramona, president of the Kansas Livestock Association. “We are going to give them our confidence,” Brunner said. “We are trusting them to protect us.” Comments such as Teske’s were outnumbered by civic leaders who described extensive public support for bringing the facility to Kansas. Many touted the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor, a region stretching from Manhattan to Columbia, which is home to the single highest concentration of companies in the animal health industry. “This is the American center of animal science, research, production and other aspects of the animal health industry,” said Bob Marcusse, head of the Kansas City Area Development Council. “There could be no better place.” Several leaders of the Kansas Legislature spoke in favor of the project, saying they recognized its importance. They have agreed to contribute more than $100 million in infrastructure improvements should federal officials select Kansas. Tom Thornton, president of the Kansas Bioscience Authority, has been one of the top leaders guiding the state’s drive for the new federal lab. He said he was encouraged by the case Kansas made Thursday. The Kansas bid is strong because of the state’s renowned animal health and food security research teams. The presence of so many animal health companies also is important because they will be able to collaborate in moving research advances more quickly into commercialized vaccines and treatments, he said. “We have a super cluster here,” Thornton said. “Silicon Valley has computers. We have industry and academic research. We need this to protect American agriculture.”
By Jason GertzenKansas City Star
MANHATTAN, Kan. | Everybody gathered here Thursday agreed on the need for a new high-tech laboratory to help protect the nation’s health and food supply.
The big unanswered question is where to build it.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and researchers, public officials and business leaders urged federal officials to pick a spot on the campus of Kansas State University for the new $500 million complex.
“It’s long past time for our nation to recognize serious animal disease threats” by building a modern facility equipped to develop new treatments and tests, Sebelius told leaders with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies.
Federal officials are traveling across the country to gather comments and questions from members of each community selected as a finalist for the proposed National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility.
Comments presented during two sessions lasting more than two hours each were part of a process that will end later this year with selection of a winner.
Other top contenders are in Texas, Georgia, North Carolina and Mississippi. They are vying to replace an aging facility on Plum Island, N.Y., that conducts some types of this research.
The lab works with some of the most contagious and potentially devastating maladies, including foot-and-mouth disease, classical swine fever, Rift Valley fever and Nipah virus.
Some of the targeted pathogens pose the risk of wiping out exposed livestock herds and shutting down exports of U.S. agricultural products. Others are zoonotic, meaning they are diseases that can jump from animals to humans.
The prospect of a local laboratory nestled in the heart of cattle country that would handle even small quantities of these viruses has drawn fierce opposition at some of the other sites. A handful of opponents surfaced Thursday in Manhattan.
Officials attempted to reassure them that the laboratory would include multiple high-tech layers of protection and it would be operated by highly trained researchers.
Still, said Donn Teske, president of the Kansas Farmers Union, the officials could not give him a 100 percent guarantee that human error or some other accident would never trigger an inadvertent release.
“I am concerned for the safety of my family and the safety of my farm,” Teske said.
Many of the strongest proponents for placing the facility in Kansas have been blinded by the potential prestige, jobs and economic benefits that would come to the state, Teske said.
The best alternative is to build a new facility on Plum Island, which would provide natural barriers to any pathogens such as foot-and-mouth disease from easily spreading, he said.
“I understand very much we need this facility and it needs to be somewhere,” Teske said. “It should be in a remote spot, preferably an island.”
Not all livestock producers opposed the facility coming to Kansas.
A vast majority of producers will see the benefit of having the facility in Manhattan and they also will accept the risks if they learn about the safeguards that federal officials will provide, said Tracy Brunner of Ramona, president of the Kansas Livestock Association.
“We are going to give them our confidence,” Brunner said. “We are trusting them to protect us.”
Comments such as Teske’s were outnumbered by civic leaders who described extensive public support for bringing the facility to Kansas. Many touted the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor, a region stretching from Manhattan to Columbia, which is home to the single highest concentration of companies in the animal health industry.
“This is the American center of animal science, research, production and other aspects of the animal health industry,” said Bob Marcusse, head of the Kansas City Area Development Council. “There could be no better place.”
Several leaders of the Kansas Legislature spoke in favor of the project, saying they recognized its importance. They have agreed to contribute more than $100 million in infrastructure improvements should federal officials select Kansas.
Tom Thornton, president of the Kansas Bioscience Authority, has been one of the top leaders guiding the state’s drive for the new federal lab. He said he was encouraged by the case Kansas made Thursday.
The Kansas bid is strong because of the state’s renowned animal health and food security research teams. The presence of so many animal health companies also is important because they will be able to collaborate in moving research advances more quickly into commercialized vaccines and treatments, he said.
“We have a super cluster here,” Thornton said. “Silicon Valley has computers. We have industry and academic research. We need this to protect American agriculture.”
07.30.08 - The NBAF would be a dynamic addition Manhattan Mercury Op-EdLinda WeisChairwoman-elect, Manhattan Area Chamber of CommerceI am writing in support of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility and its placement in Manhattan. As chair-elect of the Manhattan Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, I believe the NBAF and its people would be great assets to our community, contributing significantly to the positive quality of life we already enjoy.This assessment has been confirmed in an extraordinary show of unity by state, local, and regional leaders as they joined in unanimous and bipartisan support of Kansas State University as the NBAF site.The Kansas Legislature has endorsed the recommendation of the NBAF Kansas Task Force, comprised of 45 top-level Kansas leaders appointed by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Manhattan business, civic, and governmental leaders also have gone on record in strong support of the NBAF.At the regional level, the willingness of academic and professional partner institutions in both Missouri and Kansas to collaborate clearly identifies K-State as the leading biosecurity contender.These efforts prove conclusively the willingness of our leaders to work together for the common good. Within the last few years, our state and local leaders made a similar commitment in support of Kansas military bases during the base realignment and closure process. Our community is well aware of the economic benefits from this effort, which underscores our appreciation of Fort Riley, a strong asset to Kansas and Manhattan.We also bring to the table a significant asset in our highly-desirable Kansas work ethic, respected by employers nationwide. Aware of the big picture, they take immense pride in knowing that their job done well will surely contribute to a better world and better life.Manhattan's exceptional quality of life is well equipped to meet the needs of the NBAF and its people. Our visionary civic leaders have paved the way for exceptional community progress through the years, moving forward in faith, coupled with impeccable ethical standards and uncommon wisdom.While we have not been without challenges to our community unity, the foundation of this exceptional city has been built on its goodness as an inclusive community of dedicated citizens with seemingly endless energies — industrious, thoughtful, cooperative and respectful of one another and of differing opinions.Attracted by the hospitable nature of Manhattan's people, many newcomers, including myself, have moved here permanently when they had planned on staying only a short while. I feel qualified by my residencies in eight other university communities to observe that the basic character of this community has remained intact in spite of the more than doubling of the population of the city and K-State during my lengthy tenure here.Alive with beauty, opportunity, excitement, clean air, moderate temperatures, little traffic and fun people — in an environment that promotes courtesy, honesty, and dependability — why wouldn't everyone want to live in Manhattan, Kan., we ask ourselves!Many people would — especially if there were good job opportunities with equally good pay. Remember, this is the hometown community many of our children have fondly nicknamed "Manhappiness." It is well named, and many of them would like to live and work here. I firmly believe the NBAF will be a dynamic, safe, and secure addition to our community, as are Kansas State University and Fort Riley.
Manhattan Mercury Op-EdLinda WeisChairwoman-elect, Manhattan Area Chamber of CommerceI am writing in support of the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility and its placement in Manhattan. As chair-elect of the Manhattan Area Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, I believe the NBAF and its people would be great assets to our community, contributing significantly to the positive quality of life we already enjoy.This assessment has been confirmed in an extraordinary show of unity by state, local, and regional leaders as they joined in unanimous and bipartisan support of Kansas State University as the NBAF site.The Kansas Legislature has endorsed the recommendation of the NBAF Kansas Task Force, comprised of 45 top-level Kansas leaders appointed by Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Manhattan business, civic, and governmental leaders also have gone on record in strong support of the NBAF.At the regional level, the willingness of academic and professional partner institutions in both Missouri and Kansas to collaborate clearly identifies K-State as the leading biosecurity contender.These efforts prove conclusively the willingness of our leaders to work together for the common good. Within the last few years, our state and local leaders made a similar commitment in support of Kansas military bases during the base realignment and closure process. Our community is well aware of the economic benefits from this effort, which underscores our appreciation of Fort Riley, a strong asset to Kansas and Manhattan.We also bring to the table a significant asset in our highly-desirable Kansas work ethic, respected by employers nationwide. Aware of the big picture, they take immense pride in knowing that their job done well will surely contribute to a better world and better life.Manhattan's exceptional quality of life is well equipped to meet the needs of the NBAF and its people. Our visionary civic leaders have paved the way for exceptional community progress through the years, moving forward in faith, coupled with impeccable ethical standards and uncommon wisdom.While we have not been without challenges to our community unity, the foundation of this exceptional city has been built on its goodness as an inclusive community of dedicated citizens with seemingly endless energies — industrious, thoughtful, cooperative and respectful of one another and of differing opinions.Attracted by the hospitable nature of Manhattan's people, many newcomers, including myself, have moved here permanently when they had planned on staying only a short while. I feel qualified by my residencies in eight other university communities to observe that the basic character of this community has remained intact in spite of the more than doubling of the population of the city and K-State during my lengthy tenure here.Alive with beauty, opportunity, excitement, clean air, moderate temperatures, little traffic and fun people — in an environment that promotes courtesy, honesty, and dependability — why wouldn't everyone want to live in Manhattan, Kan., we ask ourselves!Many people would — especially if there were good job opportunities with equally good pay. Remember, this is the hometown community many of our children have fondly nicknamed "Manhappiness." It is well named, and many of them would like to live and work here. I firmly believe the NBAF will be a dynamic, safe, and secure addition to our community, as are Kansas State University and Fort Riley.
07.30.08 - Local commitment to the NBAF unparalleled Manhattan Mercury Op-EdDr. Juergen RichtKansas State UniversityKansas Bioscience Eminent ScholarEstablishing a state-of-the-art research program requires serious fiscal, intellectual and physical investments, which often makes those programs challenging to move from one location to another. But when I was given the chance to move my research from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa, to Kansas State University's BRI -- Biosecurity Research Institute -- the choice was clear.As K-State's new Regents Distinguished Professor, I am honored to bring my research program on infectious animal diseases to K-State's BRI. As a veterinary microbiologist and virologist, the ability to thoroughly examine the mechanisms used by microorganisms to survive, cause sickness and potentially jump from animals to humans is central to my work.The BRI, at Pat Roberts Hall, is uniquely equipped to accommodate my program as well as practically any other high-level research on food animals, food crops and food processing. My research on influenza and Rift Valley Fever virus infections, prion-related diseases and their cross-species transmissibility -- especially to humans -- fits like a hand in glove with K-State's research focus. And without the BRI, my research wouldn't be possible.The BRI is not only a testament to the statewide commitment to agricultural food security and food safety, but it's part of a comprehensive scientific effort involving more than 150 K-Staters. These scientists -- most of whom are international experts -- spend their valuable time working directly on keeping the nation's food supply safe from biological threats. From basic food safety practices to defusing the latest bug afflicting livestock or crops, moving to K-State gives me a chance to join a scientific team like none other in the nation.It is no surprise then that the Department of Homeland Security is looking at K-State as a potential site for its most modern animal disease facility, the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility, or NBAF. Should NBAF be built in Manhattan, federal researchers will be able to tap the university's expertise and a well-educated student body to help fight the threat of exotic and endemic emerging diseases. This collaboration will no doubt yield timely solutions to real world animal disease problems.Research slated for the NBAF is critical to ensure the long-term safety of livestock in Kansas and across the nation, and the expertise needed for that research definitely is at K-State.As a veterinary researcher, I value the commitment K-State has made to protect the nation's food supply and look forward to taking my role in protecting the people of Kansas and our nation from foreign and zoonotic animal disease threats.
06.26.08 - K-State’s focus on safe and secure food is long-standing By Marty VanierDirector of OperationsNational Agricultural Biosecurity CenterKansas State UniversityIn Kansas, agriculture isn’t only a part of our heritage, it’s a significant economic driver. Kansas farmers produce more wheat and grain sorghum than any state in the nation, nearly a quarter of all beef originates from Kansas beef processing facilities and we rank among the top for corn and soybeans. One in five Kansans is employed in agriculture or food production. Agricultural disease, whether intentionally or accidentally introduced, would have a devastating impact on the people of Kansas and the state’s economy. This reality is why it’s a priority at Kansas State University to find ways to fight agricultural disease and protect the nation’s food supply. That commitment was articulated in early 1999, when officials launched the Homeland Defense Food Safety, Security and Emergency Preparedness Program. That plan summed up the university’s historical commitment to the best in animal and agricultural health, and then took K-State’s vision to the next level. The plan called for several things, including the construction of a new biocontainment research facility. Today, K-State’s BRI -- Biosecurity Research Institute -- is the only biosafety level-3 biocontainment research and training facility in the U.S. that can accommodate high-consequence pathogen research on food animals, food crops and food processing under one roof. This significant piece of infrastructure is a testament to K-State’s expertise and vision, and serves as a resounding reminder of the university’s commitment to addressing high-consequence agricultural disease. K-State’s high-profile commitment to solving agricultural disease problems is also why the university has been selected as a potential host for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. Researchers at this top federal animal disease research lab will be charged with much the same mission as the BRI -- that is, developing countermeasures against exotic animal diseases. Some have raised concerns that studying diseases affecting farm animals in an agricultural area is not only unwise, but dangerous. Biocontainment labs are built, engineered and equipped specifically to contain the diseases being studied. And, over the years, this technology has continued to improve. In addition, scientists undergo rigorous biosafety training to ensure they know how to not only conduct safe research, but protect themselves. When technologically advanced facilities and rigorous training are combined, you greatly reduce any potential risk -- an approach that has been proven reliable in places like Atlanta, Ga., where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study highly-infectious human diseases without incident in the heart of the metroplex. Should the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility come to Manhattan, animal disease also will be safely studied here in the heartland. The American public will clearly benefit from the research slated for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, and the reality is that some foreign agricultural disease agent will come to the U.S. That’s why K-State has chosen to be proactive and research solutions before it gets here. The case for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Kansas is about a secure food supply and keeping the public safe -- expertise that K-State has consistently demonstrated.
By Marty VanierDirector of OperationsNational Agricultural Biosecurity CenterKansas State UniversityIn Kansas, agriculture isn’t only a part of our heritage, it’s a significant economic driver.
Kansas farmers produce more wheat and grain sorghum than any state in the nation, nearly a quarter of all beef originates from Kansas beef processing facilities and we rank among the top for corn and soybeans. One in five Kansans is employed in agriculture or food production.
Agricultural disease, whether intentionally or accidentally introduced, would have a devastating impact on the people of Kansas and the state’s economy.
This reality is why it’s a priority at Kansas State University to find ways to fight agricultural disease and protect the nation’s food supply.
That commitment was articulated in early 1999, when officials launched the Homeland Defense Food Safety, Security and Emergency Preparedness Program. That plan summed up the university’s historical commitment to the best in animal and agricultural health, and then took K-State’s vision to the next level.
The plan called for several things, including the construction of a new biocontainment research facility. Today, K-State’s BRI -- Biosecurity Research Institute -- is the only biosafety level-3 biocontainment research and training facility in the U.S. that can accommodate high-consequence pathogen research on food animals, food crops and food processing under one roof. This significant piece of infrastructure is a testament to K-State’s expertise and vision, and serves as a resounding reminder of the university’s commitment to addressing high-consequence agricultural disease.
K-State’s high-profile commitment to solving agricultural disease problems is also why the university has been selected as a potential host for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. Researchers at this top federal animal disease research lab will be charged with much the same mission as the BRI -- that is, developing countermeasures against exotic animal diseases.
Some have raised concerns that studying diseases affecting farm animals in an agricultural area is not only unwise, but dangerous. Biocontainment labs are built, engineered and equipped specifically to contain the diseases being studied. And, over the years, this technology has continued to improve. In addition, scientists undergo rigorous biosafety training to ensure they know how to not only conduct safe research, but protect themselves. When technologically advanced facilities and rigorous training are combined, you greatly reduce any potential risk -- an approach that has been proven reliable in places like Atlanta, Ga., where the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study highly-infectious human diseases without incident in the heart of the metroplex. Should the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility come to Manhattan, animal disease also will be safely studied here in the heartland.
The American public will clearly benefit from the research slated for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, and the reality is that some foreign agricultural disease agent will come to the U.S. That’s why K-State has chosen to be proactive and research solutions before it gets here.
The case for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility in Kansas is about a secure food supply and keeping the public safe -- expertise that K-State has consistently demonstrated.
06.14.08 - NBAF bid — Best choice K-State has the knowledge and ability to lead nation's efforts to protect crops, livestock Topeka Capital-Journal editorial boardThe Department of Homeland Security hopes to announce in October which of the five sites under consideration will be home to a $450 million National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility. We don't have any special insight into how that decision is going to go, but we think everyone involved in drafting the state's bid to bring the NBAF to Kansas State University should be commended for putting together an outstanding proposal.It's been said the cooperation between the state's political leaders — from the governor and legislators to the congressional delegation — on the project was nothing short of unprecedented. Toss in the expertise and support from KSU, and it looks as though Kansas is in great position to win this one. The state's one drawback, if politics should become a determining factor, is that it doesn't have the political clout of the more populous states in the running for the research facility. But we tend to agree with KSU's vice president for research, Ron Trewyn, who thinks Kansas wins if the selection is based solely on the merits of the five surviving bids. Homeland Security initially received 29 applicants interested in hosting a Biosafety Level 4 lab to replace an aging facility at Plum Island, N.Y. The list was trimmed to 17 and then the final five. Kansas legislators and the governor have approved spending $105 million for utility services and some operating equipment, should the NBAF land here, and that appears to top financial enticements from the other states that still have bids on the board. Add to that the Biosecurity Research Institute already at KSU — a $54 million facility devoted to ensuring the safety of the nation's food supply — the university's history in agricultural research and its respected veterinary school, and it looks as though Kansas has the most to offer. Some have raised concerns about the university's location in the midst of livestock herds that could be infected with an incurable disease should a virus escape the facility. That may be a concern, but we don't think it's one that's unique to Kansas. We believe a lab can be constructed to protect against the escape of viruses through human error or natural disaster. We already have a great deal of exposure due to the large numbers of livestock that travel into and through the state on a regular basis. With or without a research lab in our midst, one infected steer dropped off at a pasture or feedlot could cause a devastating outbreak of foot and mouth disease. We don't think it's any more dangerous to conduct research on animal viruses in an agricultural area than it is to conduct research on human diseases in a heavily populated area. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta does such research, and we've heard no reports of escaped viruses prompting people to flee that area. In short, we think KSU and the NBAF would be a great fit, and the facility's 1,500 construction jobs, 300 permanent science and the related economic impact a boon to the state.
Topeka Capital-Journal editorial boardThe Department of Homeland Security hopes to announce in October which of the five sites under consideration will be home to a $450 million National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility.
We don't have any special insight into how that decision is going to go, but we think everyone involved in drafting the state's bid to bring the NBAF to Kansas State University should be commended for putting together an outstanding proposal.It's been said the cooperation between the state's political leaders — from the governor and legislators to the congressional delegation — on the project was nothing short of unprecedented. Toss in the expertise and support from KSU, and it looks as though Kansas is in great position to win this one.
The state's one drawback, if politics should become a determining factor, is that it doesn't have the political clout of the more populous states in the running for the research facility. But we tend to agree with KSU's vice president for research, Ron Trewyn, who thinks Kansas wins if the selection is based solely on the merits of the five surviving bids.
Homeland Security initially received 29 applicants interested in hosting a Biosafety Level 4 lab to replace an aging facility at Plum Island, N.Y. The list was trimmed to 17 and then the final five.
Kansas legislators and the governor have approved spending $105 million for utility services and some operating equipment, should the NBAF land here, and that appears to top financial enticements from the other states that still have bids on the board.
Add to that the Biosecurity Research Institute already at KSU — a $54 million facility devoted to ensuring the safety of the nation's food supply — the university's history in agricultural research and its respected veterinary school, and it looks as though Kansas has the most to offer.
Some have raised concerns about the university's location in the midst of livestock herds that could be infected with an incurable disease should a virus escape the facility. That may be a concern, but we don't think it's one that's unique to Kansas. We believe a lab can be constructed to protect against the escape of viruses through human error or natural disaster.
We already have a great deal of exposure due to the large numbers of livestock that travel into and through the state on a regular basis. With or without a research lab in our midst, one infected steer dropped off at a pasture or feedlot could cause a devastating outbreak of foot and mouth disease.
We don't think it's any more dangerous to conduct research on animal viruses in an agricultural area than it is to conduct research on human diseases in a heavily populated area. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta does such research, and we've heard no reports of escaped viruses prompting people to flee that area.
In short, we think KSU and the NBAF would be a great fit, and the facility's 1,500 construction jobs, 300 permanent science and the related economic impact a boon to the state.
05.29.08 - KSU hosts nation's first designated biosecurity training facility High Plains JournalMay 29, 2008 Kansas State University's BRI -- Biosecurity Research Institute -- is the National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program's first designated training facility in the nation. A plaque illustrating the BRI's new designation was unveiled at a ceremony May 1 at the BRI. Besides representatives from K-State, the National Institutes of Health and the Frontline Healthcare Workers Safety Foundation Ltd., also represented were the city of Manhattan, Kansas Bioscience Authority and U.S. Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback. "When the BRI was designed, we knew it wouldn't be enough to build a facility focused exclusively on research needs," said Ron Trewyn, K-State's vice president for research. "Those charged with performing the research and working in the facility must also be adequately prepared to conduct their tasks in a safe manner." The BRI, at K-State's Pat Roberts Hall, is the only biosafety level-3 biocontainment research and training facility in the U.S. that can accommodate high-consequence pathogen research on food animals, food crops and food processing under one roof, which allows for a more comprehensive research approach. Pat Roberts Hall is also equipped with an integrated training suite that includes a classroom and mock lab, as well as a large auditorium and advanced video capabilities. The National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program was established in 2004 through a partnership of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Office of Research Services, Division of Occupational Health and Safety, National Institutes of Health. Administered by the Frontline Healthcare Workers Safety Foundation, the program aims to provide the latest in professional education to those who operate, maintain and work in biocontainment laboratories. Deborah E. Wilson, director of the Division of Occupational Health and Safety at the National Institutes of Health, said recent advances in animal and public health research have led to a growing number of labs and a pressing need for high-quality occupational safety and health training. "With the expansion of biocontainment laboratories in the U.S., so expanded the need for highly trained, biosafety professionals to help protect the investments made, support the nation's pressing research initiatives and to ensure the safety of the communities in which these laboratories are sited," she said. "In the last five years, the National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program has expanded to provide training for laboratory professionals across the globe. We are leading the way in biocontainment laboratory sustainability." Wilson also commended the BRI's focus on safe research and training. "This designation is an acknowledgment of the BRI's commitment, that of Kansas State and that of the state of Kansas--a commitment to the public health and safety of our country," she said. "The research to be conducted here and the personnel you have retained will ensure that the BRI will be as safe as its research is scientifically productive." Murray L. Cohen, president of the Frontline Healthcare Workers Safety Foundation, which serves as the government contractor for the National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program, noted the vision it took to pull together a facility like the BRI. "Kansas State University, through the Biosecurity Research Institute, has shown bold foresight in planning for biosecurity and food security matters," he said. "This facility is unparalleled and unsurpassed. It took at lot of vision and gumption to move forward and put this together while a lot of folks were simply talking about what is needed." Later this summer, the BRI also will be the first in the nation to host the National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program's premier biosafety and biocontainment curriculum. That session will provide the latest in professional education to those who handle biohazardous materials in biocontainment laboratories.
Kansas State University's BRI -- Biosecurity Research Institute -- is the National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program's first designated training facility in the nation.
A plaque illustrating the BRI's new designation was unveiled at a ceremony May 1 at the BRI. Besides representatives from K-State, the National Institutes of Health and the Frontline Healthcare Workers Safety Foundation Ltd., also represented were the city of Manhattan, Kansas Bioscience Authority and U.S. Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback.
"When the BRI was designed, we knew it wouldn't be enough to build a facility focused exclusively on research needs," said Ron Trewyn, K-State's vice president for research. "Those charged with performing the research and working in the facility must also be adequately prepared to conduct their tasks in a safe manner."
The BRI, at K-State's Pat Roberts Hall, is the only biosafety level-3 biocontainment research and training facility in the U.S. that can accommodate high-consequence pathogen research on food animals, food crops and food processing under one roof, which allows for a more comprehensive research approach. Pat Roberts Hall is also equipped with an integrated training suite that includes a classroom and mock lab, as well as a large auditorium and advanced video capabilities.
The National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program was established in 2004 through a partnership of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Office of Research Services, Division of Occupational Health and Safety, National Institutes of Health. Administered by the Frontline Healthcare Workers Safety Foundation, the program aims to provide the latest in professional education to those who operate, maintain and work in biocontainment laboratories.
Deborah E. Wilson, director of the Division of Occupational Health and Safety at the National Institutes of Health, said recent advances in animal and public health research have led to a growing number of labs and a pressing need for high-quality occupational safety and health training.
"With the expansion of biocontainment laboratories in the U.S., so expanded the need for highly trained, biosafety professionals to help protect the investments made, support the nation's pressing research initiatives and to ensure the safety of the communities in which these laboratories are sited," she said. "In the last five years, the National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program has expanded to provide training for laboratory professionals across the globe. We are leading the way in biocontainment laboratory sustainability."
Wilson also commended the BRI's focus on safe research and training.
"This designation is an acknowledgment of the BRI's commitment, that of Kansas State and that of the state of Kansas--a commitment to the public health and safety of our country," she said. "The research to be conducted here and the personnel you have retained will ensure that the BRI will be as safe as its research is scientifically productive."
Murray L. Cohen, president of the Frontline Healthcare Workers Safety Foundation, which serves as the government contractor for the National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program, noted the vision it took to pull together a facility like the BRI.
"Kansas State University, through the Biosecurity Research Institute, has shown bold foresight in planning for biosecurity and food security matters," he said. "This facility is unparalleled and unsurpassed. It took at lot of vision and gumption to move forward and put this together while a lot of folks were simply talking about what is needed."
Later this summer, the BRI also will be the first in the nation to host the National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program's premier biosafety and biocontainment curriculum. That session will provide the latest in professional education to those who handle biohazardous materials in biocontainment laboratories.
05.26.08 - Kansas waits for lab results By Jason GertzenKansas City StarThe nation needs a new federal animal disease laboratory, and regional leaders continued pressing the point last week that it should be built in Kansas. “Agriculture is the soft underbelly in the United States for terrorists,” said Tom Thornton, president and chief executive officer of the Kansas Bioscience Authority. Thornton made another visit to Washington, D.C., last week while continuing to shepherd the state’s pursuit of the $451 million National Bio and Agro Defense Facility. Department of Homeland Security officials are considering a location in Manhattan, along with others in Athens, Ga.; San Antonio; Butner, N.C.; and Flora, Miss. They want to find a new site for a modern facility that would replace the aging 1950s-era Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York. “There are competitive advantages Kansas has,” Thornton said. The region’s solid cluster of companies in the animal health industry, strong research programs at Kansas State University and elsewhere in animal diseases, and the existing Biosecurity Research Institute in Manhattan are among the factors that should help persuade federal officials to pick Kansas, Thornton said. A final decision is expected before the end of the year. Protecting the U.S. food supply requires elite scientists devoting attention to detecting and countering outbreaks of foreign animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease. In addition to potential threats that could devastate livestock herds, the scientists will work on diseases that can jump from animals to people. With many companies close by that specialize in animal vaccines and other products, researchers at a lab in Manhattan would easily find collaboration partners when it is time to commercialize development of tests or treatments, he said. “The ultimate outcome here is better vaccines,” Thornton said. “This is going to have an impact for American producers, for producers in our region.” A congressional subcommittee held a hearing last week that explored whether it is a good idea to work with such contagious pathogens in the heart of cattle country. The new facility, wherever it is built, will rely on multiple layers for the most advanced technologies to make sure that the diseases being studied never escape the building, said Jerry Jaax, associate vice president for research compliance at Kansas State. Kansas State already has a biosecurity research institute, a facility that has been outfitted with some of the same types of safety measures that the federal laboratory would use, Jaax said. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius formed a task force to guide Kansas’ pursuit of the federal laboratory project, referred to most commonly as NBAF. State funding of up to $105 million is part of Kansas’ bid for the facility. Officials estimate the lab will employ hundreds of scientists and draw other researchers and companies to the area. The economic impact is estimated at $1.5 billion over 20 years. State officials are hopeful Kansas is a top contender to win. Even if the state doesn’t emerge on top this time, however, forming the task force and mustering such a major effort is part of what Thornton calls a “no regrets” strategy. “NBAF is an example of what Kansas and, I would say, the region needs to do more,” Thornton said.
By Jason GertzenKansas City StarThe nation needs a new federal animal disease laboratory, and regional leaders continued pressing the point last week that it should be built in Kansas.
“Agriculture is the soft underbelly in the United States for terrorists,” said Tom Thornton, president and chief executive officer of the Kansas Bioscience Authority.
Thornton made another visit to Washington, D.C., last week while continuing to shepherd the state’s pursuit of the $451 million National Bio and Agro Defense Facility.
Department of Homeland Security officials are considering a location in Manhattan, along with others in Athens, Ga.; San Antonio; Butner, N.C.; and Flora, Miss.
They want to find a new site for a modern facility that would replace the aging 1950s-era Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York.
“There are competitive advantages Kansas has,” Thornton said.
The region’s solid cluster of companies in the animal health industry, strong research programs at Kansas State University and elsewhere in animal diseases, and the existing Biosecurity Research Institute in Manhattan are among the factors that should help persuade federal officials to pick Kansas, Thornton said.
A final decision is expected before the end of the year.
Protecting the U.S. food supply requires elite scientists devoting attention to detecting and countering outbreaks of foreign animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease. In addition to potential threats that could devastate livestock herds, the scientists will work on diseases that can jump from animals to people.
With many companies close by that specialize in animal vaccines and other products, researchers at a lab in Manhattan would easily find collaboration partners when it is time to commercialize development of tests or treatments, he said.
“The ultimate outcome here is better vaccines,” Thornton said. “This is going to have an impact for American producers, for producers in our region.”
A congressional subcommittee held a hearing last week that explored whether it is a good idea to work with such contagious pathogens in the heart of cattle country.
The new facility, wherever it is built, will rely on multiple layers for the most advanced technologies to make sure that the diseases being studied never escape the building, said Jerry Jaax, associate vice president for research compliance at Kansas State.
Kansas State already has a biosecurity research institute, a facility that has been outfitted with some of the same types of safety measures that the federal laboratory would use, Jaax said.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius formed a task force to guide Kansas’ pursuit of the federal laboratory project, referred to most commonly as NBAF. State funding of up to $105 million is part of Kansas’ bid for the facility.
Officials estimate the lab will employ hundreds of scientists and draw other researchers and companies to the area. The economic impact is estimated at $1.5 billion over 20 years.
State officials are hopeful Kansas is a top contender to win.
Even if the state doesn’t emerge on top this time, however, forming the task force and mustering such a major effort is part of what Thornton calls a “no regrets” strategy.
“NBAF is an example of what Kansas and, I would say, the region needs to do more,” Thornton said.
05.16.08 - Kansas Farm Bureau: Biodefense lab belongs in Kansas Letter to the EditorDodge City Daily GlobeAs the representative of 40,000 Kansas Farm Bureau members who are involved in the day-to day work of modern agriculture, I'm writing to support the location of the National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Manhattan.Farm Bureau members in Kansas understand that research will be vital to ensuring the safety of our nation's food supply. We know our livelihoods — and the stability of our state and national economies — rest on the detection and prevention of threats to agriculture.For decades, our members have depended on the nationally recognized expertise in animal-to-human diseases, infectious diseases and livestock medicine produced by the scientists at Kansas State University. As if that weren't enough, K-State is now home to the Biosecurity Research Institute (BRI), a biosafety level-3 laboratory, and to the National Agricultural Biosecurity Center.That's why it makes sense to bring the NBAF to Manhattan. The construction of the BRI has already laid the groundwork for even more cutting-edge research at K-State. Bringing the NBAF — the nation's most secure, state-of-the-art research lab — to Manhattan would give Kansans the security that critical know-how and clinical facilities would be readily available in case of an emergency.In addition, locating the NBAF in the center of the country is just plain smart. With most of our nation's agricultural production taking place in the Midwest, shouldn't our premier research facility be here, as well?Some in Kansas have expressed a concern that the animal diseases to be studied at NBAF could spread to livestock in Kansas. Rest assured that the technology used in biocontainment labs and rigorous training received by workers in such facilities is designed to prevent that from happening. These are the very same technologies and practices that make research on serious human diseases safe in population centers like Atlanta, Ga., and Frederick, Md.In addition to the many assets at K-State, five major universities with strong animal science or veterinary research programs are within a 300-mile radius of Manhattan. With the addition of the NBAF facility, the opportunities for collaboration in the region are exciting, far-reaching and will no doubt be critical to the well-being of our nation's agriculture and public health.Farmers and ranchers know how important food safety is to our economy and our nation's security. There's never been a more urgent need for the type of research that will take place at the NBAF, and that's why we support bringing it to Kansas.Steve BaccusPresident, Kansas Farm BureauManhattan
05.05.08 - Kansas State University animal diseases research will be safe and secure Kansas City Star guest columnDr. Ron TrewynWith a project of the magnitude of the $451 million National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, there are bound to be questions about whether it’s safe to study animal diseases near people and animals.Thanks to modern research methods and technology, this research — proposed for a site on the Kansas State University campus — is extremely safe. It is also urgently needed.The facility will provide a secure research environment using the same safety standards that have kept tens of millions of people safe in places where labs are studying disease.For instance, federal laboratories in the middle of Atlanta and Frederick, Md., have worked on the most dangerous human diseases for decades without a single outbreak. A laboratory in Winnipeg, Canada, just across the border from North Dakota, safely studies the highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease virus, also without incident.Modern bio-containment technology has eliminated the need for locating animal disease research on an island, as was done decades ago at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, just off the coast of New York.Our nation needs to significantly upgrade its capacity to prevent disease outbreaks in animals. The half-century-old Plum Island facility is outdated and doesn’t have the research or diagnostic capabilities to address animal diseases that could be introduced into the United States.Two years ago, the federal government asked communities with established animal research programs to step forward. In recognition of our state’s expertise, a site on K-State’s campus made the short list for this new $451 million research facility, along with five other locations.At each site, questions have been raised about conducting animal disease research in areas near livestock.The fact is that research at the facility will protect those animals. That’s the purpose: to develop vaccines and other measures to treat and prevent diseases that threaten animal health, the nation’s food supply and the health of the public.Our country does not have sufficient facilities to conduct research on critical foreign animal diseases, some of which pose health risks to people. Thus required animal vaccines and solutions to potential human health threats cannot be developed in a timely fashion.A decision to build the facility in an isolated location away from animals and people would significantly increase costs and continue to limit the availability of researchers willing to do this important work.When you marry state-of-the-art bio-containment structures, technological know-how and proven safety protocols, research on animal and human diseases can be conducted safely anywhere.Ultimately, making communities more safe and secure is the goal.Ron Trewyn is Kansas State University’s vice president for research. He lives in Manhattan, Kan.
Kansas City Star guest columnDr. Ron TrewynWith a project of the magnitude of the $451 million National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, there are bound to be questions about whether it’s safe to study animal diseases near people and animals.Thanks to modern research methods and technology, this research — proposed for a site on the Kansas State University campus — is extremely safe. It is also urgently needed.The facility will provide a secure research environment using the same safety standards that have kept tens of millions of people safe in places where labs are studying disease.For instance, federal laboratories in the middle of Atlanta and Frederick, Md., have worked on the most dangerous human diseases for decades without a single outbreak. A laboratory in Winnipeg, Canada, just across the border from North Dakota, safely studies the highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease virus, also without incident.Modern bio-containment technology has eliminated the need for locating animal disease research on an island, as was done decades ago at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center, just off the coast of New York.Our nation needs to significantly upgrade its capacity to prevent disease outbreaks in animals. The half-century-old Plum Island facility is outdated and doesn’t have the research or diagnostic capabilities to address animal diseases that could be introduced into the United States.Two years ago, the federal government asked communities with established animal research programs to step forward. In recognition of our state’s expertise, a site on K-State’s campus made the short list for this new $451 million research facility, along with five other locations.At each site, questions have been raised about conducting animal disease research in areas near livestock.The fact is that research at the facility will protect those animals. That’s the purpose: to develop vaccines and other measures to treat and prevent diseases that threaten animal health, the nation’s food supply and the health of the public.Our country does not have sufficient facilities to conduct research on critical foreign animal diseases, some of which pose health risks to people. Thus required animal vaccines and solutions to potential human health threats cannot be developed in a timely fashion.A decision to build the facility in an isolated location away from animals and people would significantly increase costs and continue to limit the availability of researchers willing to do this important work.When you marry state-of-the-art bio-containment structures, technological know-how and proven safety protocols, research on animal and human diseases can be conducted safely anywhere.Ultimately, making communities more safe and secure is the goal.Ron Trewyn is Kansas State University’s vice president for research. He lives in Manhattan, Kan.
03.17.08 - Kansas: The Bioscience Capital It’s a lofty goal—to make Kansas the number one location for bioscience research and development in fields like biofuels, animal health, and biomaterials. Those involved in the effort are hoping to build on the strength of the existing bioscience infrastructure in Kansas. Kansas Public Radio health reporter Bryan Thompson has more in his series, "Kansas Health: A Prescription for Change." Kansas Public Radio
03.11.08 - Manhattan is ideally suited for NBAF Manhattan MercuryKansas has long been known for its amber waves of grain and plentiful world-class beef. What many have not realized, however, is that Kansas’ agricultural expertise has catapulted it into leadership in fields far beyond the farm — namely, the scientific laboratory. That’s right. Kansas’ international strengths in agribusiness and the animal-health industry have positioned the state squarely in the forefront of some of the most innovative and important animal-health research taking place today. And this expertise is opening doors to amazing opportunities for growth. In 2006, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a call to communities interested in playing a more active role in a national priority: securing the food supply and protecting public health. Kansas was one of many states that offered to host the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, a $451 million federal laboratory charged with researching and defusing high-consequence pathogens threatening the food supply. The federal government, recognizing the existing expertise at Kansas State University and throughout the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor, put Manhattan on its list of six potential sites this summer after a very competitive selection process. By itself, K-State has a history of proven commitment to food safety and security that predates even the attacks of 9/11. The university has a top-tier veterinary school, an extensive research network capable of addressing nearly all aspects of food security and an active faculty with strong ties to industry. It doesn’t hurt that Manhattan is also geographically in the thick of the nation’s agricultural economy. In addition, the Kansas Bioscience Authority is investing considerably in K-State’s continued success. A recent $2.5 million commitment to attract researchers from across the nation to K-State’s Biosecurit
Manhattan MercuryKansas has long been known for its amber waves of grain and plentiful world-class beef. What many have not realized, however, is that Kansas’ agricultural expertise has catapulted it into leadership in fields far beyond the farm — namely, the scientific laboratory.
That’s right. Kansas’ international strengths in agribusiness and the animal-health industry have positioned the state squarely in the forefront of some of the most innovative and important animal-health research taking place today. And this expertise is opening doors to amazing opportunities for growth.
In 2006, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a call to communities interested in playing a more active role in a national priority: securing the food supply and protecting public health.
Kansas was one of many states that offered to host the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility, a $451 million federal laboratory charged with researching and defusing high-consequence pathogens threatening the food supply.
The federal government, recognizing the existing expertise at Kansas State University and throughout the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor, put Manhattan on its list of six potential sites this summer after a very competitive selection process.
By itself, K-State has a history of proven commitment to food safety and security that predates even the attacks of 9/11. The university has a top-tier veterinary school, an extensive research network capable of addressing nearly all aspects of food security and an active faculty with strong ties to industry. It doesn’t hurt that Manhattan is also geographically in the thick of the nation’s agricultural economy.
In addition, the Kansas Bioscience Authority is investing considerably in K-State’s continued success. A recent $2.5 million commitment to attract researchers from across the nation to K-State’s Biosecurit