Slashdot Mirror


CDC Closes Anthrax, Flu Labs After Potentially Deadly Mix-Ups Come to Light

In the wake of two potentially deadly accidents, the CDC yesterday announced the temporary closure of both the anthrax and flu research labs at the agency's Atlanta headquarters. The New York Times reports: In one episode last month, at least 62 C.D.C. employees may have been exposed to live anthrax bacteria after potentially infectious samples were sent to laboratories unequipped to handle them. Employees not wearing protective gear worked with bacteria that were supposed to have been killed but may not have been. All were offered a vaccine and antibiotics, and the agency said it believed no one was in danger. “We have a high degree of confidence that no one was exposed,” said Dr. Thomas Frieden, the C.D.C. director. Credit David Goldman/Associated Press In a second accident, disclosed Friday, a C.D.C. lab accidentally contaminated a relatively benign flu sample with a dangerous H5N1 bird flu strain that has killed 386 people since 2003. Fortunately, a United States Agriculture Department laboratory realized that the strain was more dangerous than expected and alerted the C.D.C. ... The anthrax and flu labs will remain closed until new procedures are imposed, Frieden said. For the flu lab, that will be finished in time for vaccine preparation for next winter’s flu season, he said.

25 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. So will there be criminal charges? by Bruce66423 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is what should happen surely?

    1. Re:So will there be criminal charges? by imidan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wouldn't it make more sense to perform an audit to ensure that this hasn't happened unnoticed in the past, and simultaneously to perform a review and revision of the protocols and policies that allowed this to happen? I feel like solving the problem is more important than assigning blame. I mean, I can see firing someone if they had acted from gross incompetence, but I don't think prison is necessary.

    2. Re:So will there be criminal charges? by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 2

      Because the word "Polynesian" means "many islands" in its Greek derivative. An apt description of a common people's who migrated bravely across miles of ocean to populate a host of islands.

      Information easily obtained from the web also...

      Unless it was a tongue in cheek joke...in which case a bad one.

    3. Re:So will there be criminal charges? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe so. But was it the same guy who caused both of these things to happen? Is their timing coincidental, or is there a systemic cause? Maybe the political reality is that someone needs to be fired, and I can understand that, but I'm more interested in making sure that we minimize the risk of this happening again by identifying and addressing the systemic causes.

    4. Re:So will there be criminal charges? by sjames · · Score: 2

      You would rather punish someone than make sure this doesn't happen again? Why?

      If you want people to be open and honest about how things are actually being done so you can find out where the problem lies, you cannot also be playing the blame game.

      Beyond that, where is the criminal intent? Do you allege that some psychopath is deliberately endangering lives for a laugh?

    5. Re:So will there be criminal charges? by gtall · · Score: 2

      Ah, yes, someone fucked up, let the lawsuits begin. Woe betide the poor SOB who screws something up not by malice or incompetence but simply because s/he wasn't perfect all the time.

      Let's turn the entire American economy and government into a sclerotic clusterfuck mimicking the patent mess that only lawyers can disentangle...for high hourly fees and changes that will benefit them to keep the gravy train rolling. All aboard!!

  2. Mel Brooks handles it this way by turkeydance · · Score: 2

    As long as the world is turning and spinning, we're gonna be dizzy and we're gonna make mistakes.

  3. Just to remind everybody... by gweihir · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "People that do stupid things with dangerous objects often die."

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. National security we can really get behind. by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Informative
    The CDC has to study the dangerous types of virus, since they can be weaponized.

    If you think mistakes and carelessness are rare with level four viruses, I recommend The Hot Zone by Richard Preston.

    If you remember you have something to live for, it will keep you up nights.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  5. Big government at its worst! by mark_reh · · Score: 5, Funny

    The handling of deadly disease agents should be privatized and put into the hands of industry as soon as possible! Let the free market solve the problem!

    1. Re: Big government at its worst! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a friend that works at the influenza lab in question. From what I've been told... this is what happened. That the prep work was done by private sector before samples were handed off to the CDC. It was a poorly trained lab tech at the private company that screwed up the anthrax samples in question. (Second hand hearsay here though, so take with a grain of salt.)

  6. When the CDC sneezes, everyone catches a cold by JoeyRox · · Score: 2

    And then everyone dies.

  7. Re: CDC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I really, realy hope you aren't this stupid - anthrax spores can probably be cultured from the dirt in your backyard by any competent undergrad microbiology student.... sticking our head the sand and saying "LALALALALALALALA" works about as well in bacteriology as it does for global warming, the NSA, Wall Street corruption, etc.

    Really hoping I've been Godwin-d.

  8. Killing the employees seems a bit harsh by Kardos · · Score: 3, Funny

    > Employees not wearing protective gear worked with bacteria that were supposed to have been killed but may not have been.

    So the employees didn't use protective gear during their work, and that got them slated for a killing? I can understand trying to contain an outbreak, but one would think they should have been quarantined and tested for infection before commencement with the killing. Who's in charge of this mickey mouse operation anyway?

    1. Re:Killing the employees seems a bit harsh by kybred · · Score: 2

      > Employees not wearing protective gear worked with (bacteria that were supposed to have been killed but may not have been).

      I've often wished that writers of the English language were required to use parenthesis to help with parsing.

    2. Re:Killing the employees seems a bit harsh by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I've often wished that writers of the English language were required to use parenthesis to help with parsing.

      In fact, that is the purpose of the comma, which is often incorrectly replaced with parentheses.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Employees supposed to have been killed by Skevin · · Score: 2

    "Employees not wearing protective gear worked with bacteria that were supposed to have been killed but may not have been."

    The Employees were supposed to have been killed? Now which Three-Letter-Angency is responsible for that?

    --
    "Twice half-assed makes an ass whole." --Solomon K. Chang
    1. Re:Employees supposed to have been killed by weilawei · · Score: 2

      It is perhaps a somewhat awkwardly written sentence, but it is not grammatically incorrect or ambiguous as far as I can tell.

      Just run it by a constitutional scholar. I'm sure they'll provide you with many more interpretations.

  10. Re:Well ... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    YOu mean when an issue came to light the immediately started working on it to see that it's fixed?

    Yes, that is government system at work,

    Why do idiots like you thing privatized health care doesn't have incidents? oh right, because private companies can hush it up where as government entities have to be far more open.

    Had this been private company, do you think you would have heard of it?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  11. Responsible party? by Bruce66423 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In British law we have the slightly perverse sight of government instutition being charged in their own right - without the need to identify an individual. The outcome is fines paid by one part of government to another, but it does focus the leadership to get it right (my own police force has at least one conviction for health and safety violations arising from the death of police office).

    1. Re:Responsible party? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why would it discourage reporting? If you are senior enough you do the normal Pr route of a meaningless apology, fire some Junior scapegoat and its all forgotten in next weeks scandal. If you are unlucky then you get kicked upstairs to some other position on a higher pension rate for the rest of your career.

      That's how the old boy network works in the UK old bean.

  12. People get blase about risks by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2

    When you live with a situation that the world labels 'dangerous' and nothing happens, it's hard to keep believing its really dangerous. This is why deterrent sentences on criminals don't have much effect; people get used to the idea, and carry on living in the same way regardless of the risk. Sad but true!

  13. Huh? Ignorance is no defence by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2

    If the law has been broken, then it is always chargeable as a offence, even if it's as a result of stupidity not criminal intent. The alternative is that ignorance becomes an absolute defence, which makes no sense.

  14. Interesting argument by Bruce66423 · · Score: 2

    The problem, of course, is that if there is no meaningful accountability, then there's no incentive to get it right. UK unions are attempting to get a named company director liable for health and safety violations to encourage compliance, but the reality is that it's so difficult to do that the outcome is liable to be that nobody would accept the job. By contrast the National Health Service is trying to encourage 'no blame' reporting of errors, but there the ambulance chasing lawyers turn up and make it undesirable to admit errors for a different reason Thanks for making me think!

    1. Re:Interesting argument by sjames · · Score: 2

      In cases with potentially dire consequences, I suspect people will be careful even if they don't believe they will be held accountable. In other cases, it may be too easy to rationalize that nothing bad will actually happen (often true of things like workplace safety).