Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday Risk Research Review ActThe bill would create an independent national security committee to review and approve “high-risk life sciences research” projects seeking federal funding.
This first-of-its-kind proposal would create a Life Sciences Research Security Board within the executive branch, responsible for providing “oversight of life sciences research funding across the Federal Government to protect public health, safety, and national security.”
“If this bill had been enacted 10 years ago, the COVID-19 pandemic could have been prevented.”
The act defines “high-risk life science research” as research that has the potential for dual use or poses a threat to public health, including “gain-of-function research, research involving genetic modification or the synthesis of potential pandemic pathogens, and activities involving the collection or surveillance of potential pandemic pathogens.”
Grant applicants wishing to conduct research projects that fall into this category can receive federal funding only if they receive approval from a majority of the members of the Security Committee.
The nine-member commission, appointed by the president with Senate confirmation, would include an executive director, five non-government scientists, and two national security experts. Members would serve a maximum of two four-year terms and could not be current or have been federal employees within the past three years. The bill would require the security commission to submit annual reports to Congress and online.
On Thursday morning, the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held an oversight meeting. Hearing About “taxpayer-funded high-risk virus research.”
Senators heard testimony from Dr. Gerald Parker, Associate Dean for Global One Health in the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Dr. Carrie Wolinetz, principal and chair of the Health and Biosciences Innovation Practice Group at Lewis Burke Associates and former senior advisor to the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Robert Redfield, former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Dr. Kevin Esvelt, associate professor at the MIT Media Lab.
In his opening statements at the hearing Thursday morning, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) appeared to indicate he might not oppose legislation similar to the one proposed by Paul.
“Expert witnesses called for strong oversight of a wide range of high-risk life science research in the United States and abroad,” Peters said. “Life science research is critical to protecting public health and national security by helping develop vaccines, improving diagnostic tests and better understanding potential biological threats.”
“This research is incredibly dangerous, as scientists come into contact with harmful pathogens and may not have the necessary training on how to handle them properly,” Peters added. “If equipment malfunctions or researchers make unwitting mistakes, this could pose serious health risks to the general public.”
“Over the past four years, compelling evidence has emerged supporting the laboratory origins of the pandemic and unravelled the web of deception that was the massive COVID cover-up,” Paul said in his opening remarks.
“So what has been done since it was discovered that our government was funding dangerous virus research overseas with little to no oversight? The answer is stark, appalling: virtually nothing has been done,” Paul said. “In this dystopian world we now find ourselves in, it is our duty to challenge the status quo — to shine a light on the darkest side of government operations and protect the freedoms and lives of the people we serve.”
Wolinetz defended federal oversight of research into dangerous pathogens.
“Overall, while this policy framework is imperfect and needs to continue to evolve with the science and the current threat landscape, it represents perhaps the most rigorous oversight of pathogen research in the world,” Wolinetz argued. “If we make it too difficult for scientists to conduct experiments that expand our knowledge about pathogens and to communicate their results, we will be ill-prepared for the next biological threat that emerges.”
The Committee press release He unveiled the Risk Research Review Act, noting that funding for such studies is currently “insufficient.”[s] Without sufficient government oversight, American taxpayer money could be spent without proper checks.”
Redfield called the bill “a very important piece of legislation that will ensure that national security is prioritized in funding decisions for America’s life sciences” and called for a moratorium on gain-of-function research.
“If this bill had been enacted 10 years ago, we could have prevented the COVID-19 pandemic,” Redfield added.
Richard Ebright, Rutgers University Board of Regents professor of chemistry and chemical biology and director of the university’s Waksman Institute of Microbiology, also voiced his support for the bill.
“Current deficiencies in U.S. oversight of research on potential pandemic pathogens put the United States at risk of a research-related pandemic whose health care, economic, and national security impacts would be as disruptive and damaging as, or more so than, the COVID-19 pandemic,” Ebright said. “Addressing these deficiencies is essential and urgent.”
Ebright wrote in the post: X “The United States has no binding regulations regarding biosafety or biorisk management for research on pathogens other than smallpox virus, other than the requirement to develop biosafety plans, the content of which is left to the discretion of research institutions,” it said Thursday.
Do you like Blaze News? Bypass censorship and subscribe to our newsletter to get stories like this delivered directly to your inbox. Sign up here!
