Boston likes to think of itself as a progressive, tolerant city that values education, excellent health care and social justice. To a certain extent, this is true. Bostonians may hold seemingly compatible beliefs, yet when these values collide, as they have over Boston Universityís construction of a BioSafety Level 4 laboratory, it becomes evident that Boston is not quite the city on the hill many believe it to be. B.U.ís new BioLab in Roxbury is the latest instance of a morality clash between higher education and the desire for social justice of a community consistently trampled upon by the powers that be.

In September 2003, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease selected Boston as the site of a new research complex containing Biosafety Level 2, 3 and 4 laboratories. The lab is designed to hold dangerous pathogens such as tularemia, anthrax, and the Ebola viruses, many of which can be spread through the air. These viruses would be transported through Roxbury, one of Bostonís poorest and most densely populated areas; more than 25,000 people live within a mile radius of the lab. Understandably, the local residents have been hesitant to allow this potential biohazard into their neighborhood.

Some claim that it is alarmist to oppose the creation of this lab. After all, it is unlikely that these viruses would ever escape and become a major public health hazard. However, community members question why risks should be taken at all. The Boston Biolab is the only Level 4 laboratory in an urban area, which also is one of the most visited and populated northeastern cities. The Massachusetts Nurses Association contends that ìmany of the agents could be used in biowarfare and bioterrorism. An agent that escaped containment would pose a severe threat to public health and the environment and could cause a public health crisis.î Since Boston University received $128 million from the Bush Administrationís Defense Department for this project, one can assume much of the research would involve the creation and testing of biological weapons. As a result, the lab could become a high risk of being a terrorist target.

Mistakes do happen. Humans are flawed. In May 2004, three researchers were exposed to tularemia in one of B.U.ís existing labs. Though Mayor Menino and B.U. were aware of this security breach, it was not until November 2004 that B.U. reported the case to the authorities. In October 2009, a B.U. grad student developed a bacterial infection after studying dangerous meningitis bacteria; recognizing that this infection could have been caused by his work with the dangerous bacteria, the student and his supervisor contacted health officials immediately. With regards to terrorist threats, one must remember that the anthrax attacks of 2001 were most likely carried out by Bruce Edwards Ivins, a government biodefense scientist, using anthrax cultured in a United States government research facility. If one is looking at this lab from a harm-reduction perspective, it seems that the construction of the lab in an urban area is a poor idea because the lab could alternatively be located in a sparsely populated area without major inconvenience or loss of productivity.

In a social justice context, the BioLab sends a negative message to minority communities across the state. Roxbury is a poor community of color and already has its share of environmental and public health problems. Host to multiple Superfund biohazard sites Roxbury also is the location for many of Bostonís trash transfer stations. Unwilling to endure further hazards, the surrounding community has been vocal in its opposition to the labís construction since before it even began: the community has lobbied and rallied against the complex. The governments of Boston, Massachusetts and the United States as well as Boston University disregarded the communityís concerns and proceeded to build. One wonders whether it would have been as easy to ignore local protest if the lab was built in affluent Wellesley instead.

Though the lab was scheduled to be opened by 2005, the intense community opposition has delayed the labís operation until at least 2010. This is seen as a victory for those in pursuit of social justice, yet the war may still be lost. Despite the success of community organization, the amount of money invested in the lab seems to ensure its ultimate opening. The security procedures and mechanisms for the research complex will certainly be strong. Regardless, no amount of security will ease the worries of locals or erase the stain the lab has made on Bostonian social justice. The people speak while the ivory tower and Big Brother turn the other cheek.