ciated since
the
use
of atmospheric
sampling devices which show that such
common and simple procedures as removing stoppers, expelling the last drop
from
a
pipette,
or
removing
plugs
from a tube may produce aerosols
near the laboratory bench (20). Filtra-
tion of infectious material may result
in contamination of a vacuum line or
pump unless adequate precautions are
taken, and maceration of infected tis-
sue by a variety of means may produce an infectious aerosol. Blenders
for mechanical disruption of infected
tissue have been designed to minimize
the chance of leakage and to provide
a means of drawing off fluid without
removing the top (21). If, in addition,
the operation is performed in sterile
chamber with a plastic cover over the
apparatus, there should be little hazard.
The opening of sealed glass ampules
containing lyophilized active viral material constitutes a serious inhalation
hazard in the laboratory. Special techniques have been recommended for
opening such ampules.
Sources of laboratory-acquired arbovirus infections are shown in Table 3.
In many instances, it was known only
that the individuals had been working
with the agent and that the source was
probably aerosol inhalation. In addi-
tion to those classified as due to an
aerosol, a number of infections under
Other headings were probably transmitted by aerosols. Known accidents
resulting from situations that could
have been avoided accounted for about
10 percent of the total.
The survey of laboratory-acquired
infections has provided information concerning the number of cases and the
identity of viruses that cause infections,
Regular reporting of laboratory-acquired infections to the American Arbovirus Committee or American Public
Health Association would stimulate
the development of more effective measures to reduce the hazards in arbovirus
laboratories. Regular testing of all members of the laboratory staff for antibodies to all viruses that they handle
should be encouraged as a means of
assessing the effectiveness of safety pro-
cedures. The greatest hope of prevent-
ing taboratory-acquired illness lies in
the recognition of the sources of infec-
tion; the unrecognized sources consti-
tute the greatest problem.
While there is no evidence that use
of immunizing substances such as se-
rum from convalescents or specific immunoglobulin is of any value after
symptoms of arbovirus infection appear, a rationale based on studies in
experimental animals has been developed for use of such substances for
passive immunization immediately or
soon after accidental exposure. Be-
cause of the numbers of laboratory
workers required to handle an increasing number of arboviruses in diagnostic
and research studies, efforts are being
made by the National Communicable
Disease Center and the World Health
Organization to collect, pool, and accumulate serums of convalescents from
NEWS AND COMMENT
specific arbovirus infections. These serums are being processed into specific
immunoglobulins and will eventually be
available on a restricted basis for use
after certain types of laboratory accidents.
References and Notes
1. S. E. Sulkin and R. M. Pike, New Engl, J.
Med, 241, 205 (1949).
, Amer. J. Public Heaith 41, 769 (1951).
. S. E, Sulkin (Chairman), R. M. Pike, and
M. L. Schulze.
4. Many arbovirologists made available data
from their own experiences in their respective
laboratories.
5. S. E. Sulkin and R. M. Pike, in Diagnostic
Procedures for Viral and Rickettsial Diseases,
E, H. Lennette, Ed. (Amer. Public Health
Assoc., ed. 3, 1964}, pp. 67-77.
6. W. McD. Hammon and T. H. Work, in ibid.,
pp. 268-311.
7. American Committee on Arboviruses, Subcommittee for Exchange of Information on
the Arboviruses, R. M, Taylor (Chairman), R.
E. Shope, and T. H. Work.
8. A. N. Slepushkin, Probl. Virol. 4, 54 (1959).
9. T. H. Work, H. Trapido, D. P. N. Murthy,
R. L. Rao, P. N. Bhatt, K. G. Kulkarni,
Indian J, Med. Sci. 11, 619 (41957); L. J.
Morse, S. B, Russ, C. F. Needy, E. L.
Buescher, J. Immunol. 88, 240 (1962).
10. C. A. Brandly, Cornell Vet. 41, 162 (1951).
11. D. B. Lackman, personal communication to
S. E. Sulkin.
12. G. Davison, C. Neubauer, E. W. Hurst,
Lancet 1948-IT, 453° (1948).
13. D. I, H. Simpson, Trans. Royal Soc, Trap.
Med. Hyg. 58, 335 (1964).
14, H. von Mangnus, Acta Pathol. Microbiol.
Scand. 27, 276 (1950).
15. W. Haymaker, G. E. Sather, W. McD. Hammon, Arch. Neurol. Psychol. 73, 609 (1955),
16. E. H. Lennette and H. Koprowski, J, Amer,
Med, Ass, 123, 1088 (1943).
17. M. Theiler, 4an. Trep. Med. Parasitol. 24,
249 (1930); S. F. Kitchen, Amer. J. Trop.
Med. Hyg. 14 547 (1934); A. B. Sabin and R.
W. Blumberg, Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 64,
385 (1947),
18. R. M. Pike, S. E. Sulkin, M. L. Schulze,
Amer. J. Public Health 55, 190 (1965).
19. R. E. Anderson, L. Stein, M. L. Moss, N. H.
Gross, J, Bactertol. 64, 473 (1952)
20. A. G. Wedum, Amer. J. Public Heaith 43,
1428 (1953); M. Reitman and A. G. Wedum,
Public Health Rep, U.S. 71, 659 (1956).
21. J. E. Smadel, Amer. J. Public Heaith 41, 788
(1951).
en
strated (19). The potential source of
infection has been more fuily appre-
juvenation. In the scramble to save -an-
other nickel, few targets proved more
tempting than federal support of re-
Federal Research Funds: Science
Gets Caught in a Budget Squeeze
As the first session of the 90th Congress draws to a close, it is clear that
President Johnson’s legislative program
has been badly gutted. A number of
factors—~the rising economic and emotional costs of the Vietnam war, a general fiscal squeeze, poor Democratic
congressional leadership, a stronger
conservative coalition, and growing an1286
tipathy between the legislative and executive branches—combined to produce
a Congress this year that ignored or
drastically altered many of the Presi-
dent’s legislative requests. The closing
months in particular have been marked
by an economy wave that engulfed vir-
tually all non-war-related spending re-
quests. from foreign aid to urban re-
search and development. As Representative Frank T. Bow (R—Ohio) expressed
it: “R & D spending is a prime area for
economy.”
,
Such attitudes made it certain that
the budget and appropriations process
for fiscal year 1968 would provide no
bonanza for science. Thus there are
probably two main points to be made
in any analysis of how science fared
this year: One is that science received
rougher-than-usual treatment at the
hands of congressional appropriations
committees—though things could have
been worse; the other is that things
are certain to get worse, thanks to the
latest budget-cutting scheme agnourided:
SCYENCE, VOL. 158