The Cambridge Working Group
News
January 2, 2016
Less than a month ago, the NIH Office of Science Policy announced an NSABB meeting to take place on January 7th
and 8th, 2016, on the NIH Bethesda campus. Along with the announcement, the risk-benefit analysis report
commissioned by the NSABB was posted online by the NSABB and its chosen contractor, Gryphon Scientific. At the
meeting, the NSABB will consider the report, and its response to the analysis, which will form a
policy recommendation.
The NSABB has asked the public to submit comments on the 1000+ pages report by December 31st, 2015 - less than a month after the report's release, in a time window that includes the end of the year holidays.
Cambridge Working Group members Marc Lipsitch, Stanley Plotkin, Lynn Klotz, Carlos Moreno, and Steven Salzberg have written their comments which are made public through the links below.
Comments by Marc Lipsitch
Comments by Stanley Plotkin
Comments by Lynn Klotz
Comments by Carlos Moreno
Comments by Steven Salzberg
The NSABB has asked the public to submit comments on the 1000+ pages report by December 31st, 2015 - less than a month after the report's release, in a time window that includes the end of the year holidays.
Cambridge Working Group members Marc Lipsitch, Stanley Plotkin, Lynn Klotz, Carlos Moreno, and Steven Salzberg have written their comments which are made public through the links below.
Comments by Marc Lipsitch
Comments by Stanley Plotkin
Comments by Lynn Klotz
Comments by Carlos Moreno
Comments by Steven Salzberg
October 17, 2014
Today, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Department of Health and Human Services announced that the U.S. Government is launching a deliberative process to assess the potential risks and benefits associated with gain-of-function studies.
During this period, the U.S. Government will institute a pause on funding for any new studies that include certain gain-of-function experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses, and encourages those currently conducting this type of work – whether federally funded or not – to voluntarily pause their research while risks and benefits are being reassessed.
We are looking forward to engaging in this process.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/10/17/doing-diligence-assess-risks-and-benefits-life-sciences-gain-function-research
During this period, the U.S. Government will institute a pause on funding for any new studies that include certain gain-of-function experiments involving influenza, SARS, and MERS viruses, and encourages those currently conducting this type of work – whether federally funded or not – to voluntarily pause their research while risks and benefits are being reassessed.
We are looking forward to engaging in this process.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/10/17/doing-diligence-assess-risks-and-benefits-life-sciences-gain-function-research
September 22, 2014
The European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, ESCMID, and the
Turkish Medical Association have endorsed the Cambridge Working Group statement.
http://www.ttb.org.tr/en/index.php/tuem-haberler-blog/179-ttb/1232-cambridge
https://www.escmid.org/news_discussion/news/
http://www.ttb.org.tr/en/index.php/tuem-haberler-blog/179-ttb/1232-cambridge
https://www.escmid.org/news_discussion/news/
July 31, 2014
On July 31, 10pm EST, the Cambridge Working Group released the following statement:
STATEMENT FROM THE CAMBRIDGE WORKING GROUP IN RESPONSE
TO STATEMENT BY SCIENTISTS FOR SCIENCE
BOSTON, MA July 31, 2014
We welcome the statement three days ago by Scientists for Science (www.scientistsforscience.org) and we concur with the call for further discussions, under the auspices of a neutral forum, of the risks and benefits of construction of new potential pandemic pathogens. We are encouraged that there is common ground to explore.
We would like to move this forward in a constructive way. We look forward to dialogue with all groups and institutions with a stake in this “high-stakes” issue. We should take advantage of the shared desire to find solutions in the interest of protecting public health and safety while respecting scientific freedom and goals.
Amir Attaran, Barry Bloom, Arturo Casadevall, Richard Ebright, Nicholas Evans, David Fisman, Alison Galvani, Peter Hale, Michael Imperiale, Thomas Inglesby, Marc Lipsitch, Michael Osterholm, David Relman, Richard Roberts, Marcel Salathé, Lone Simonsen. Silja Vöneky is traveling.
BOSTON, MA July 31, 2014
We welcome the statement three days ago by Scientists for Science (www.scientistsforscience.org) and we concur with the call for further discussions, under the auspices of a neutral forum, of the risks and benefits of construction of new potential pandemic pathogens. We are encouraged that there is common ground to explore.
We would like to move this forward in a constructive way. We look forward to dialogue with all groups and institutions with a stake in this “high-stakes” issue. We should take advantage of the shared desire to find solutions in the interest of protecting public health and safety while respecting scientific freedom and goals.
Amir Attaran, Barry Bloom, Arturo Casadevall, Richard Ebright, Nicholas Evans, David Fisman, Alison Galvani, Peter Hale, Michael Imperiale, Thomas Inglesby, Marc Lipsitch, Michael Osterholm, David Relman, Richard Roberts, Marcel Salathé, Lone Simonsen. Silja Vöneky is traveling.
