Not In My Backyard!

The principle idea of “Not in my backyard” has been around since Chernobyl and other nuclear crises. With the Yucca Mountain province set as a nuclear waste dump, no one wants to live anywhere in the remote vicinity of Utah. However, after September 11, the defense system took on a new form, biodefense. With anthrax and other threats of biological warfare staring the government down, they felt it necessary to spend, to date, thirty-six billion on defense against the threat (Nature, 1). Has the government taken this threat way too seriously or is there validity in their spending?

In the November 6 issue of Nature magazine, an editorial addresses this very subject. “ “Who wants a bioweapons lab next door?” discusses the governments construction of a bioweapons lab in Boston’s Roxbury district. The community made an effort to sue Boston University Medical Center and the National Institutes of Health to block the construction of the one-hundred and seventy-eight million dollar project, but the courts denied to stop construction at the moment, only assuring that they reserved the right to stop construction at any time in the future” (Nature, 1). However, while construction persists, it seems doubtful that the courts will stop it after millions continue to be spent daily.

The author seems particularly concerned with how much is too much? While every person in the United States would love to be completely protected and have the ultimate safety, sometimes it is not possible. The premise that building vast amounts of bioweapon labs has not been thoroughly explained by the Bush administration, but the author states, “five years on, the time has come for it to do so” (Nature, 1). The author makes the valid claim that while anthrax and other bioterrorism techniques are threats, it seems as if spending has become excessive and is spilling over into the public arena because of the number of plants that are in the process of being built.

The problem with biological weapons in general is the fact that 34 years ago, they were banned. The Washington Post recently released an editorial emphasizing the need for the lab. A description of the lab states, “the heart of the lab is a cluster of sealed chambers built to contain the world's deadliest bacteria and viruses. There, scientists will spend their days simulating the unthinkable: bioterrorism attacks in the form of lethal anthrax spores rendered as wispy powders that can drift for miles on a summer breeze, or common viruses turned into deadly superbugs that ordinary drugs and vaccines cannot stop” (Warrick, 1). The Washington Post article differs from the Nature article, in that it openly supports the multi-million dollar project. While Nature is concerned about the citizens in the surrounding area, The Washington Post thinks that this project is looking out for the safety of all citizens. The article goes on to state the pros and cons of this massive project that is being developed by the government. “ "All the programs we do are defensive in nature," said Maureen McCarthy, Homeland Security's director of research and development, who oversees NBACC. "Our job is to ensure that the civilian population of the country is protected and that we know what the threats are" “(qtd. in Warrick, 2). The editorial provides interesting insight into the plans, layout, and use of the facility (Here is the link for further reading).

While I believe that our country does what is in the best interest of the people, this controversy is certainly one that need not be overlooked. The part I find most disturbing is the description provided by the Post of the building. It is difficult to assess the situation entirely because most people tend not to concern themselves with the threat of bioterrorism, but after researching this and reading opposing articles I realize the extent of the threat and the government response. To be honest, I completely understand the worries of the people in the Roxbury District and other surrounding areas. No one wants to look out the back window and see a large biological weapon plant or have their children playing in the backyard near it.

Works Cited:

"Enough Biodefence." Nature 44402 Nov 2006 1. 25 Jan 2007 .

Warrick, "Bioterrorism." The Washington Post 1. 25 Jan 2007 .