Federal government makes mistake with report: Danger of epidemics from the laboratory?

Wrong numbers cause confusion

Question from someone who has been reprimanded: Does the Canton of Bern consider an average control interval of 7.7 years sufficient? The answer from the Cantonal Laboratory: “No, and that does not apply. The IVI [Institut für Virologie und Immunologie in Mittelhäusern BE; Anm. d. Red.] has been inspected by the canton ten times in the last fifteen years, and the Spiez laboratory six times since the opening of the new building in 2012. In addition, there is regular professional exchange with both companies.” In other words: at both laboratories with the highest safety level in the canton of Bern, inspections take place every one and a half to two years.

The building and environment department in the Basel region has a very similar message: “The laboratories are checked at least every three years.” And in both cantons people are, to say the least, annoyed that they were not allowed to read the EDI report despite repeated requests.

Will the pandemic return?

Experts estimate

This is what the Corona winter will look like

Question to the Interior Department: How does the EDI arrive at control intervals of 7.7 and seven years for Bern and Basel-Landschaft respectively? The figures in the report are based on the inspections reported by the cantons, the media spokeswoman writes: “If the cantons have inspected more often, as they themselves say, this may be related to the type of report (inspection of companies vs. inspection of activities in these operations) or can be attributed to missing reports.”

A first conclusion after repeated follow-up with the EDI and the cantons responsible for the controls: the problem is not the irregular controls, but the incorrect information contained in the report, on which no fewer than four federal agencies have worked. Not only are the numbers wrong, but another central claim in the report is simply fabricated: the WHO has never made recommendations on how often high-security laboratories should be checked.

The EDI provides “updated figures”

In the course of the investigation, the EDI media spokeswoman also sends new figures based on “updated information from the cantons”: In the canton of Zurich, checks were carried out annually, in Bern and Basel-Stadt on average every 1.2 years, in Geneva every 2.9, in the Basel region every five years and in Vaud every ten years.

A report on a very sensitive subject, facts that are incorrect and figures that suddenly become massively smaller: the confusion increases rather than decreases. It’s time to ask a professional.

This person must remain anonymous because he fears problems with his employer. A quick word about his qualifications: he knows the world of high-security laboratories from his own years of experience and he knows how they are controlled. Switzerland, he explains, is one of the world leaders when it comes to biosecurity. The checks are systematic and thorough.

When it comes to inspections, you should know that the cantonal authorities rarely inspect an entire laboratory at once, but in most cases only new so-called activities, that is, research work involving dangerous pathogens and recently approved by the federal government . “The cantonal laboratories are watching there very closely. An activity that has been running smoothly for years does not need to be checked every time.” Other aspects would also be examined, such as personnel issues or further training. And of course everything is fully documented. Moreover, laboratories and cantonal authorities are “in constant communication”.

air upwards

So everything is fine? Well, not quite. There are certainly points in the EDI report that can legitimately be discussed. For example, the report states that all checks are announced. There are also no uniform standards for inspections. Each canton checks according to its own protocol. And perhaps the most serious point: in the 41 laboratories in Switzerland that work with dangerous to very dangerous pathogens, employees are not, as usual, at least at federal level, monitored for activities in sensitive areas. There is simply no legal basis for such personal safety testing in high-security laboratories.

More on the topic of Corona

It concerns millions

The federal government wants money back for incorrectly billed Covid tests

BAG boss Anne Lévy

“What I can vaccinate, I vaccinate.”

Lessons learned from the pandemic

Switzerland still has no stock of masks

The non-profit think tank Pour Demain, which focuses, among other things, on biological safety, sees further opportunities to make working with highly dangerous pathogens safer. “Switzerland has the potential to take a pioneering role with further measures,” explains program manager Laurent Bächler.

In addition to personal safety checks and mandatory biosafety training for all employees, Pour Demain proposes an anonymous reporting system for laboratory accidents and near misses, as already exists in Canada. Mandatory safety courses and personal safety exams are nothing new either: they have existed in nuclear facilities for a long time. And finally, the think tank is also floating the idea of ​​a federal biosafety inspection. This could relieve the burden on the cantons and ensure further professionalization and harmonization of controls in highly secured laboratories – and also record the figures correctly.