Advertisement

Synthetic Biology Industry: Biosafety Risks to Workers

  • Vladimir MurashovEmail author
  • John Howard
  • Paul Schulte
Chapter
Part of the Risk, Systems and Decisions book series (RSD)

Abstract

Synthetic biology involves two closely related capabilities: (1) the design, assembly, synthesis, or manufacture of new genomes, biological pathways, devices, or organisms not found in nature for use in agriculture, bio-manufacturing, health care, energy, and other industrial sectors and (2) the redesign of existing genes, cells, or organisms for the purpose of drug discovery and gene therapy. Synthetic biology has accelerated the growth of the biotechnology sector of the US economy. This rapid growth has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the number of workers employed in the synthetic biology industry.

Notes

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the US Department of Health and Human Services.

References

  1. Baker, D., Church, G., Collins, J., et al. (2006). Engineering life: Building a FAB for biology. Scientific American, 294, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, P. (2005). Synthetic biology for nanotechnology. Nanotechnology, 16, R1–R8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bej, A. K., Perlin, M. H., & Atlas, R. M. (1988). Model suicide vector for containment of genetic engineered microorganisms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 54(10), 2472–2477.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, P., Baltimore, D., Brenner, S., Roblin, R. O., III, & Singer, M. F. (1975). Summary statement of the Asilomar Conference on Recombinant DNA Molecules. PNAS, 72(6), 1981–1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergeson, L. L., Campbell, L. M., Dolan, S. L., et al. (2015). The DNA of the U.S. regulatory system: Are we getting it right for synthetic biology? Washington, D.C.: Wilson Center. Retrieved from http://www.synbioproject.org/publications/dna-of-the-u.s-regulatory-system/. Accessed on 16 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  6. Blaese, R. M., Culver, K. W., Miller, A. D., et al. (1995). T lymphocyte-directed gene therapy for ADA-SCID: Initial trial results after 4 years. Science, 270, 475–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bokhoven, M., Stephen, S. L., Knight, S., et al. (2009). Insertional gene activation by lentiviral and gammaretroviral vectors. Journal of Virology, 83(1), 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byers, K. B. (2015). Biosafety tips. Applied Biosafety, 20, 250–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cai, Y., Agmon, N., Choi, W. J., et al. (2015). Intrinsic biocontainment: Multiplex genome safeguards combine transcriptional and recombinational control of essential yeast genes. PNAS, 112(6), 1803–1808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carlson, R. (2016). Estimating the biotech sector’s contribution to the US economy. Nature Biotechnology, 34(3), 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carter, S. R., Rodemeyer, M., Garfinkel, M. S., & Friedman, R. (2014). Synthetic biology and the U.S. biotechnology regulatory system: Challenges and options. J. Craig Venter Institute. Retrieved from http://www.jcvi.org/cms/fileadmin/site/research/projects/synthetic-biology-and-the-us-regulatory-system/full-report.pdf. Accessed on 16 Mar 2018.
  12. Center for Biosecurity of UPMC. (2012). The industrialization of biology and its impact on national security. Retrieved from http://www.upmchealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/2012/2012-06-08-industrialization.pdf. Accessed on 13 Mar 2018.
  13. Chan, C. T. Y., Lee, J. W., Cameron, E., Bashor, C. J., & Collins, J. J. (2016). ‘Deadman’ and ‘passcode’ microbial kill switches for bacterial containment. Nature Chemical Biology, 12, 82–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cockrell, A. S., Ma, H., Fu, K., McCown, T. J., & Kafri, T. (2006). A trans-lentiviral packaging cell line for high-titer conditional self-replicating HIV-1 vectors. Molecular Therapy, 14(1), 276–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Convention on Biological Diversity. (2015). Report of the Ad Hoc technical expert advisory group on synthetic biology. UNEP/CBD/SYNBIO/AHTEG/2015/1/3. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/synbio/synbioahteg-2015-01/official/synbioahteg-2015-01-03-en.pdf. Accessed on 19 Mar 2018.
  16. Cronin, J., Zhang, X.-Y., & Reiser, J. (2005). Altering the tropism of lentiviral vectors through pseudotyping. Current Gene Therapy, 5(4), 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cross, D., & Burmester, J. K. (2006). Gene therapy for cancer treatment: Past, present and future. Clinical Medicine & Research, 4(3), 218–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cummings, C. L., & Kuzma, J. (2017). Societal risk evaluation scheme (SRES): Scenario-based multi-criteria evaluation of synthetic biology applications. PLoS One, 12(1), e0168564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. deGrandpre, A. (2017). The survival of a Mars mission could depend on astronaut urine. Washington Post August 23, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/08/23/the-survival-of-a-mars-mission-could-depend-on-astronaut-urine/?utm_term=.903e0a6953c8. Accessed 19 Mar 2018.
  20. Department of Defense (DOD). (2015). Technical assessment: Synthetic biology. Office of Technical Intelligence, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research & Engineering. Retrieved from http://defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/OTI-SyntheticBiologyTechnicalAssessment.pdf. Accessed 19 Mar 2018.
  21. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2009). Biosafety in microbiological and biomedical laboratories (DHHS Publication No. (CDC) 21–1112) (5th ed.). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/bmbl.pdf. Accessed on 16 Mar 2018.
  22. Eisenstein, M. (2016). Living factories of the future. Nature, 531, 401–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Pesticides; Agricultural Worker Protection Standard Revisions, November 2, 2015. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-11-02/pdf/2015-25970.pdf. Accessed on April 2, 2018.Google Scholar
  24. Erickson, R., Sing, H. R., & Winters, P. (2011). Synthetic biology: Regulating industry uses of new biotechnologies. Science, 333, 1254–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (2017). FDA approval brings first gene therapy to the United States: CAR T-cell therapy approved to treat certain children and young adults with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. FDA News Release. Retrieved from https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm574058.htm. Accessed on 15 Mar 2018.
  26. Fredrickson, D. S. (1980). A history of the recombinant DNA guidelines in the United States. Retrieved from https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/FF/B/B/K/C/_/ffbbkc.pdf. Accessed on 2 Apr 2018.
  27. Friends of the Earth U.S., International Center for Technology Assessment, & ETC Group. (2010). The principles for the oversight of synthetic biology. Retrieved from http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/The%20Principles%20for%20the%20Oversight%20of%20Synthetic%20Biology%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed 16 Mar 2018.
  28. Gallagher, R. R., Patel, J. R., Interiano, A. L., Rovner, A. J., & Isaacs, F. J. (2015). Multilayered genetic safeguards limit growth of microorganisms to defend environments. Nucleic Acids Research, 43(3), 1945–1954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Garfinkel, M. (2012). Biological containment of synthetic microorganisms: Science and policy. European Science Foundation/Standing Committee for Life, Earth, and Environmental Sciences Strategic Workshop, November 13–14, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.embo.org/documents/science_policy/biocontainment_ESF_EMBO_2012_workshop_report.pdf. Accessed on 29 Mar 2018.
  30. Garfinkel, M. S., Endy, D., Epstein, G. L., & Friedman, R. M. (2007). Synthetic genomics: Options for governance. Retrieved from http://www.synbiosafe.eu/uploads/pdf/Synthetic%20Genomics%20Options%20for%20Governance.pdf. Accessed on 16 Mar 2018.
  31. Gibson, D. G., Benders, G. A., Andrews-Pfannkoch, C., et al. (2008). Complete chemical synthesis, assembly, and cloning of a Mycoplasma genitalium genome. Science, 319, 1215–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gibson, D. G., Glass, J. I., Lartigue, C., et al. (2010). Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome. Science, 329, 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grady, D. (2017). Work stops at C.D.C.’s top deadly germ lab over air hose safety. The New York Times, February 17, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/health/cdc-germ-lab-safety.html. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
  34. Gray, J. T. (2011). Laboratory safety for oncogene-containing retroviral vectors. Applied Biosafety, 16(4), 218–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hayden, E. C. (2015). Tech investors bet on synthetic biology. Nature, 527, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Howard, J., Murashov, V., & Schulte, P. (2017). Synthetic biology and occupational risk. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 14(3), 224–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kurihara, K., Okura, Y., Matsuo, M., Toyota, T., Suzuki, K., & Sugawara, T. (2015). A recursive vesicle-based model protocell with a primitive model cell cycle. Nature Communications, 6, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuzma, J. (2016). Reboot the debate on genetic engineering. Nature, 531, 165–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lander, E. S. (2015). Brave new genome. The New England Journal of Medicine, 373(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ledford, H. (2016). Gene editing surges as U.S. rethinks regulations. Nature, 532, 158–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leduc, S. (1910). Theorie physico-chimique de la vie et generations spontanees (p. 202). Paris: A. Poinat.Google Scholar
  42. Levine, B. L., Humeau, L. M., Boyer, J., et al. (2006). Gene transfer in humans using a conditionally replicating lentiviral vector. PNAS, 103(46), 17372–17377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lokko, Y., Hejde, M., Schebesta, K., Scholtes, P., Van Montagu, M., & Giacca, M. (2018). Biotechnology and the bioeconomy – Towards inclusive and sustainable industrial development. New Biotechnology, 40, 5–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lowrie, H., & Tait, J. (2010). Policy brief: Guidelines for the appropriate risk governance of synthetic biology. Lausanne: International Risk Governance Council. Retrieved from http://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/irgc_SB_final_07jan_web.pdf. Accessed on 16 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  45. Maetzig, T., Galla, M., Baum, C., & Schambach, A. (2011). Gammaretroviral vectors: Biology, technology and application. Viruses, 3, 677–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Merten, O.-W., & Al-Rubeai, M. (2011). Viral vectors for gene therapy. New York: Human Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Miller, D. M., & Gulbis, J. M. (2015). Engineering protocells: Prospects for self-assembly and nanoscale production lines. Life, 5, 1019–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Moe-Behrens, G. H. G., Davis, R., & Haynes, K. A. (2013). Preparing synthetic biology for the world. Frontiers in Microbiology, 4(5), 1–10.Google Scholar
  49. Mosier, D. E. (2004). Introduction for ‘safety considerations for retroviral vectors: A short review’. Applied Biosafety, 9(2), 68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Murashov, V., & Howard, J. (2008). The U.S. must help set international standards for nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 3, 635–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Murashov, V., & Howard, J. (2009). Essential features of proactive risk management. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 467–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Murashov, V., Schulte, P., Geraci, C., & Howard, J. (2011). Regulatory approaches to worker protection in nanotechnology industry in the USA and European Union. Industrial Health, 49, 280–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Naldini, L. (2015). Gene therapy returns to centre stage. Nature, 526, 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. National Archives and Records Administration. (1992). Exercise of federal oversight within scope of statutory authority: Planned introductions of biotechnology products into the environment. Federal Register, 57(39), 6753–6762.Google Scholar
  55. National Research Council of the National Academies. (2015). Industrialization of biotechnology: A roadmap to accelerate the advanced manufacturing of chemicals. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  56. NIH. (2016). NIH guidelines for research involving recombinant or synthetic nucleic acid molecules (NIH guidelines). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Office of Science Policy, April, 2016. Retrieved from https://osp.od.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/NIH_Guidelines.html. Accessed on 15 May 2018.
  57. NIOSH. (2009). Approaches to safe nanotechnology: Managing the health and safety concerns associated with engineered nanomaterials (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2009–125). Cincinnati: U.S. Department of the Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2009-125/pdfs/2009-125.pdf. Accessed on 29 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  58. NIOSH. (2014). The state of the national initiative on prevention through design (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014–123). Cincinnati: U.S. Department of the Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2014-123/pdfs/2014-123.pdf. Accessed on 29 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  59. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2018). Infectious diseases rulemaking. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/dsg/id/index.html. Accessed on 14 Mar 2018.
  60. Office of Science Technology and Policy (OSTP). (1986). Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology. Executive Office of the President, June 26, 1986. Retrieved from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/fedregister/coordinated_framework.pdf. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
  61. Office of Science Technology and Policy (OSTP). (2017). Modernizing the regulatory system for biotechnology products: Final version of the 2017 update to the coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2017_coordinated_framework_update.pdf. Accessed on 14 Mar 2018.
  62. OSHA. (1985). Agency guidelines on biotechnology. Federal Register, 50(71), 14468–14469.Google Scholar
  63. OSHA. (2005a). Toxic and hazardous substances, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1910.1000. 2005. pp. 7–18. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=9991&p_table=STANDARDS. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
  64. OSHA. (2005b). Access to employee exposure and medical records, Code of Federal Regulations Title 29, Part 1020. 2005. pp. 93–102. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10027. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
  65. OSHA. (2010). Bloodborne pathogens, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1910.1030. 2010. pp. 265–278. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10051. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
  66. OSHA. (2014a). Hazard communication, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1910.1200. 2014. pp. 463–591. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=standards&p_id=10099. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
  67. OSHA. (2014b). Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1910.1450. 2014. pp. 591–651. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10106. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
  68. OSHA. (2014c). Respiratory protection, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29, Part 1910.134. 2014. pp. 426–452. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=12716. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
  69. Phelan, M. (2018). Why fungi adapt so well to life in space. Scienceline, March 7, 2018. Retrieved from http://scienceline.org/2018/03/fungi-love-to-grow-in-outer-space/. Accessed on 29 Mar 2018.
  70. Pollack, A., & Wilson, D. (2010). Safety rules can’t keep up with biotech. The New York Times, May 27, 2010. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/business/28hazard.html?_r=0. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
  71. Presidential Commission for the Study of Biomedical Issues. (2010). New directions: The ethics of synthetic biology and emerging technologies. Washington, D.C.: Presidential Commission for the Study of Biomedical Issues. Retrieved from https://bioethicsarchive.georgetown.edu/pcsbi/sites/default/files/PCSBI-Synthetic-Biology-Report-12.16.10_0.pdf. Accessed on 29 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  72. Robbins, P. D., & Ghivizzani, S. C. (1998). Viral vectors for gene therapy. Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 80(1), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rohn, J. (2013). Synthetic biology goes industrial. Nature Biotechnology, 31, 773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sakuma, T., Barry, M. A., & Ikeda, Y. (2012). Lentiviral vectors: Basic to translational. The Biochemical Journal, 443, 603–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Schambach, A., Zychlinski, D., Erhnstroem, B., & Baum, C. (2013). Biosafety features of lentiviral vectors. Human Gene Therapy, 24, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schlimgen, R., Howard, J., Wooley, D., Thompson, M., Baden, L. R., Yang, O. O., Christiani, D. C., Mostoslavsky, G., Diamond, D. V., Gilman Duane, E., Byers, K., Winters, T., Gelfand, J. A., Fujimoto, G., Hudson, W., & Vyas, J. M. (2016). Risk associated with lentiviral vector exposures and prevention strategies. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58(12), 1159–1166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Schmidt, M. (2010). Xenobiology: A new form of life as the ultimate biosafety tool. BioEssays, 32(4), 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Schmidt, M. (2012). Introduction. In M. Schmidt (Ed.), Synthetic biology: Industrial and environmental applications (pp. 1–6). Wiley-Blackwell: Weinheim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Schmidt, M., & de Lorenzo, V. (2012). Synthetic constructs in/for the environment: Managing the interplay between natural and engineered biology. FEBS Letters, 586, 2199–2206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Schulte, P., Rinehart, R., Okun, A., Geraci, G. L., & Heidel, D. S. (2008). National prevention through design (PtD) initiative. Journal of Safety Research, 39(2), 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schulte, P., Mundt, D. J., Nasterlack, M., Mulloy, K. B., & Mundt, K. A. (2011). Exposure registries: Overview and utility for nanomaterial workers. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(6 Suppl), S42–S47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Scott, A. (2018). A CRISPR path to drug discovery. Nature, 555, S10–S11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sewell, D. L. (1995). Laboratory-associated infections and biosafety. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 8, 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Smith, H. O., Hutchison, C. A., Pfannkoch, C., & Venter, J. C. (2003). Generating a synthetic genome by whole genome assembly: фX174 bacteriophage from synthetic oligonucleotides. PNAS, 100(26), 15440–15445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stanford University. (2018). Biosafety manual. Retrieved from https://ehs.stanford.edu/manual/biosafety-manual. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
  86. Steidler, L., Neirynck, S., Huyghebaert, N., et al. (2003). Biological containment of genetically modified Lactococcus lactis for intestinal delivery of human interleukin 10. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 785–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. SynBioBeta. (2017). The synthetic biology industry: Annual growth update. Retrieved from http://synbiobeta.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2017/03/Synthetic-Biology-Industry-Annual-Growth-Update-2017.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
  88. Synthetic Biology Leadership Council. (2015). Biodesign for the bioeconomy: UK synthetic biology strategic plan 2016. Retrieved from http://www.synbio.cam.ac.uk/news/synbio-strategic-plan-2016. Accessed 19 Mar 2018.
  89. Synthetic Biology Project. (2018). What is synthetic biology? Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center. Retrieved from http://www.synbioproject.org/topics/synbio101/definition/. Accessed on 19 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  90. Szybalski, W. (1974). In vivo and in vitro initiation of transcription. In A. Kohn & A. Shatkay (Eds.), Control of gene expression (pp. 23–24). New York: Plenum Press, 404–405, 411–412, and 415–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tomas, H. A., Rodriquez, A. F., Alves, P. M., & Corodinha, A. S. (2013). Chapter 12: Lentiviral gene therapy vectors: Challenges and future directions. In F. M. Molina (Ed.), Gene therapy: Tools and potential applications. Open Source, InTech, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.intechopen.com/books/gene-therapy-tools-and-potential-applications/lentiviral-gene-therapy-vectors-challenges-and-future-directions. Accessed on 19 Mar 2018.
  92. Trevan, T. (2015). Biological research: Rethink biosafety. Nature, 527, 155–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Trump, B. D., Foran, C., Rycroft, T., Wood, M. D., Bandolin, N., Cains, M., et al. (2018). Development of community of practice to support quantitative risk assessment for synthetic biology products: Contaminant bioremediation and invasive carp control as cases. Environment Systems and Decisions, 38(4), 517–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. University of Cincinnati. (2014). Viral vectors: Web training. Biosafety Office. Retrieved from http://researchcompliance.uc.edu/biosafety/Training/ViralVectorWebtraining.aspx. Accessed on 20 Mar 2018.
  95. Verbeek, J. H., Ijaz, S., Mischke, C., Ruotsalainen, J. H., Mäkelä, E., Neuvonen, K., Edmond, M. B., Sauni, R., Kilinc Balci, F. S., & Mihalache, R. C. (2016). Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (4), CD011621.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011621.pub2.
  96. Villano, J. S., Follo, J. M., Chappell, M. G., & Collins, M. T., Jr. (2017). Personal protective equipment in animal research. Comparative Medicine, 67(3), 203–214.Google Scholar
  97. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. White House. (2012). National bioeconomy blueprint. Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/national_bioeconomy_blueprint_april_2012.pdf. Accessed on 19 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  99. World Health Organization (WHO). (2004). Laboratory biosafety manual (3rd ed.). Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/biosafety/Biosafety7.pdf. Accessed on 16 Mar 2018.Google Scholar
  100. Wurtz, N., Papa, A., Hukic, M., DiCaro, A., Lepare-Goffart, I., Leroy, E., et al. (2016). Survey of laboratory-acquired infections around the world in biosafety level 3 and 4 laboratories. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, 35(8), 1247–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Yin, H., Kauffman, K. J., & Anderson, D. G. (2017). Delivery technologies for genome editing. Nature Reviews: Drug Discovery, 16, 387–399.Google Scholar
  102. Young, A. (2016). CDC labs repeatedly faced secret sanctions for mishandling bioterror germs. USA Today, May 10, 2016. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/05/10/cdc-lab-secret-sanctions/84163590/. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
  103. Young, A., & Penzenstadler N. (2015). Inside America’s secretive biolabs. USA Today, May 28, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/05/28/biolabs-pathogens-location-incidents/26587505/. Accessed 20 Mar 2018.
  104. Zufferey, R., Dull, T., Mandel, R. J., et al. (1998). Self-inactivating lentivirus vector for safe and efficient in vivo gene delivery. Journal of Virology, 72(12), 9873–9880.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations