This study investigates community response to the proposed installation of National Bioncontainment Laboratories (NBL) in three U.S. communities. The NBL have been billed by the federal government as the frontline in providing local, regional, and national protection from the world's most virulent pathogens. In each case, reputable Universities with mature medical facilities and strong reputations in related fields of study responded to a National Institutes of Health RFP to sponsor and manage the NBL for the federal government. Yet, a remarkable range of reactions to the NBL's ostensibly safety enhancing initiative-strong opposition (Davis, CA), growing opposition (Boston, MA), no significant opposition (Galveston, TX)-highlights the importance of understanding variable response to programs intended to minimize risk and increase public security and preparedness. The general questions the project seeks to answer include: (1) What factors help explain variable interpretation by the lay-public of the same initiative as, for some, promoting "safety" and for others promoting "risks?" And, (2) What role does policy construction and the strategic pursuit of this initiative by the sponsor organizations play in the NBLs acceptance and/or rejection by surrounding communities? These questions will be investigated through case comparison in which each location is the unit of analysis--both the community and associated NBL sponsor organization. The project will rely on a multi-method approach involving in-depth interviews, field study, media analysis, and archival records to draw conclusions. Triangulation of these data will provide the basis for conclusions.
The project research objectives and anticipated contributions are threefold: (1) to improve knowledge and theory concerning the basis for community impressions of "what is safe" and "what is safety enhancing;" (2) to document how community conceptions of the NBL, as a public health and preparedness initiative, effect(ed) the policy implementation process; and (3) to suggest general administration and policy options that will aid in the creation and implementation of preparedness initiatives that the public more readily accepts and/or that they are less likely to rejected.
