Misplaced Pages

Talk:Biosafety level: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:48, 21 August 2011 editSalvidrim! (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors28,650 edits Merging into: Biosafety_level: new section← Previous edit Revision as of 16:51, 21 August 2011 edit undoSalvidrim! (talk | contribs)Edit filter helpers, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors28,650 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 48: Line 48:
TWM TWM


== REDACTED ==
== Merging into: Biosafety_level ==


I am proposing merging this page with ]. Most of the information is redundant between the two pages, and a separate page should be made for the ]. ] (]) 16:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC) My apologies, I was wrong. Nevermind! ] (]) 16:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:51, 21 August 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biosafety level article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
WikiProject iconMedicine C‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Remove all BSL 3 labs

After reading through this article, and then doing a little bit of Googling, I realized that there are 4 BSL-3 labs within walking distance of my current location, and at least 10 within 30 minutes. I am at UNC-CH. Anyways, point is, the number of BSL-3 labs has skyrocketed at a rate so high that it is no longer relevant to list BSL-3 labs in this article. Such a list would warrant a separate article possibly. Jjesusfreak01 (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What's usually done on Misplaced Pages is to start a new article titled List of biosafety facilities. Change notability "Level 4 are accepted because of the nature of their work. If the facility is 3 or below, it must be linked to an article elaborating on it", by requiring an article be associated with the entry, it exposes it to WP:N. Does this help? ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, you are in a university/agricultural town, but I see your point. If done, perhaps list these labs by their public/private funding?biopunk 09:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)biopunk

I have to agree here, most hospitals dealing with pathology have at least a small level 3 lab for things like TB, a list of all the level 3 labs in the world would run into the many thousands! A more interesting list would be of all the level 4 labs, as these are much rarer.Philman132 (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree - remove the list of BSL 3 labs. I know of several in Montreal, Canada (my home) alone (I work in one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.230.152.3 (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I have removed those BL-3s with no claim to notability and/or no citation. I, personally, would go further as to remove all BL-3 labs; they are, as mentioned above, commonplace in virology labs. Jebus989 11:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the calls to remove all BSL-3 listings due to their supposed insignificance. To the Wiki-er from UNC-CH, that's near Research Triangle? Of course you'd have so many labs within walking distance. You also have many top notch research universities within walking distance. I second the follow-up post that says you are from a major research university hub and therefore your argument is too anecdotal. However, I would not be opposed to the idea of creating a separate article listing BOTH BSL-3 AND 4 labs in separate tables.

Furthermore, there are only three BSL-3/4 labs in Canada according to a list by the Federation of American Scientists. In fact, even that list is not up-to-date as I have just added one lab from Vietnam (setup in 2006) that does not even appear on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.173.120.68 (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

In 2007 there were 1356 BSL-3 labs registered with the USDA or CDC under the select agent program. This is certainly under-counting them, since they don't have to register if they don't work with select agents, and there are thousands more outside the US. The federal government does not even have proper tracking in place. Certainly BSL 3 labs should be removed; there's no encyclopedic value to listing them and the current list is massively incomplete. --TeaDrinker (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Some info about the Institute of Virology and Immunoprophylaxis (IVI)

It is correct, that there are treated only animal diseases, but some are also dangerous for humans
(rabies, avian flu, porcine flu, etc...), therefore in some experiments suits are worn! Please, somebody with a wiki-account, correct the info. I don't have one, and I don't want to create one just for this.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.229.23 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing Level 3/4 Facility

On the table, there is an entry to say a Level 4 facility is being built in the United Kingdom, but not where, nor who the owner of the building/land is currently. Most likely to be the DSTL or even QinetiQ, although the latter is highly unlikey. Perhaps a research university such as Oxford, Cambridge, Birmingham or perhaps Imperial College?

Hendra virus is NOT a BSL-3 pathogen

It is a BSL-4 pathogen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.111.5.34 (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Private BSL-3 facilities abound

Having worked and consulted in the DC area, RTP, Chicago, and at corporate sites around the eastern half of the US, I don't see any way to reasonably assemble a complete list of BSL-3 facilities. None of the ones I've worked at except USAMRIID are on this list; BSL-3 facilities are simply too common. Many vaccine manufacturing and testing facilities exist that can handle the pathogens requiring BSL-3, and most of them are not publicly advertised. The key point for BSL-3 is that treatment exists; if the treatment is derived from the living pathogen, industry will need this facility. While there isn't a West nile, Anthrax, SARS, or yellow fever testing facility on every corner, they are not uncommon enough to have the scarcity noted.

152.14.43.30 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC) TWM

REDACTED

My apologies, I was wrong. Nevermind! Salvidrim (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

  1. http://www.fas.org/programs/bio/biosafetylevels.html
Categories: