The Veterinarian’s Role in Biocontainment Research Animal Facilities and Prevention of Spread of Pathogens: A Case of Nigeria and South Africa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
As a reviewer from the global north, this was an interesting review of the state of LAM and the role of veterinarians in managing potential emergencies at biocontainment animal facilities.
That said, your focus on the spurious theory of COVID-19's origins in laboratories substantially weakens your paper. Hang your narrative on a different hook, please. (Remove lines 14-18, lines 38-42, line 71, line 83, line 89, line 92, line 260, perhaps others.) Overall, the first parts of this paper are really oddly conspiratorital and incorrect. I especially strongly object to the tissue of ridiculous falsehoods in reference 6. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf if you want something more factual or https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715. Stick to what you know and don't speculate about the origins of disease outbreaks (because you keep getting it wrong).
Do not cite the Guardian (line 63). Use peer reviewed literature instead: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2277462/
Your discussion of Taiwan and SARS is disingenuous--the virus originated on the Chinese mainland. Yes, there was a lab-related accident, but that's not the source of SARS in Taiwan. It was a Chinese national in Feb of 2003.
Citing USA Today? Cite the CDC instead. https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/media/releases/2015/s0313-burkholderia-pseudomallei.html The monkeys didn't escape, Burkholderia did.
Line 103-105 not necessary.
Citing this paper might be useful: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5879558/
Cite with no paper cited: Brian, 2004.
Para starting Line 147 not necessary for paper.
Part 3: the title is "in Africa" and only 2 countries are expanded upon, even though there are 3 countries represented in the authorship and 54 countries in Africa. If SA is the only one with a pathway, then that should be clarified or explained as to why SA and Nigeria are the only ones listed.
Section 4: in the para 204-215, this might be a nice place to cite the BMBL and its recommendations if there are no equivalent African-country produced documents. https://www.cdc.gov/labs/BMBL.html
Is there an equivalent in the EU? https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en
Section 5: you mention power fluctuations later and I think given global climate change, you should mention them in the para beginning 228 as well. Failure of power may mean that HVAC fails entirely especially if there is no generator power (or no power for installed generators).
5.4: again with the coronavirus.
5.5.2: use of safe sharps where feasible. Not great for mice, but there are engineering solutions available for some sharps-related incidents with self-capping needles, etc. Might want to mention not re-using sharps (I am old enough to remember cleaning, recapping, and autoclaving needles to reuse in veterinary medicine).
5.6: instead of "without protective clothing," I would be more broad and say "under unsafe conditions" because some samples should be handled in biosafety cabinets, regardless of clothing.
Section 6: the OIE isn't the OIE anymore. It is WOAH. Please change all references in the document. https://www.woah.org/en/home/
Line 393-395 doesn't seem relevant.
6.2: line 424, change this to should, not must, as not every experiment is going to have a clearly defined endpoint but you could say something like "death as an endpoint studies should be rare and strongly justified to the relevant ethical authority".
Section 8: remove 549-550.
Section 6.5 should be first.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Only place that needs light editing is section 7, lines 496-503.
Author Response
Reviewer 1
As a reviewer from the global north, this was an interesting review of the state of LAM and the role of veterinarians in managing potential emergencies at biocontainment animal facilities.
That said, your focus on the spurious theory of COVID-19's origins in laboratories substantially weakens your paper. Hang your narrative on a different hook, please. (Remove lines 14-18, lines 38-42, line 71, line 83, line 89, line 92, line 260, perhaps others.) Overall, the first parts of this paper are really oddly conspiratorital and incorrect. I especially strongly object to the tissue of ridiculous falsehoods in reference 6. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Declassified-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf if you want something more factual or https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp8715. Stick to what you know and don't speculate about the origins of disease outbreaks (because you keep getting it wrong).
Thank you for the suggestions, COVID-19 specific information has been removed from the manuscript and published articles cited. See Line 15 -18, 34-44.
Do not cite the Guardian (line 63). Use peer reviewed literature instead: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2277462/
The reference has been updated. See line 583 - 584.
Your discussion of Taiwan and SARS is disingenuous--the virus originated on the Chinese mainland. Yes, there was a lab-related accident, but that's not the source of SARS in Taiwan. It was a Chinese national in Feb of 2003.
The sentence has now been rephrased to indicate that Taiwan faced incidents of laboratory acquired SARS during the outbreak. See line 64 – 65.
Citing USA Today? Cite the CDC instead. https://archive.cdc.gov/www_cdc_gov/media/releases/2015/s0313-burkholderia-pseudomallei.html The monkeys didn't escape, Burkholderia did.
A published article has been cited. See line 573 – 574.
Line 103-105 not necessary.
Thank you for the suggestion, but we also think this statement is necessary to justify the need for training since lack of training has been reported at North Carolina State University.
Citing this paper might be useful: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5879558/
The article has been cited, see line 621 - 622.
Cite with no paper cited: Brian, 2004.
The full citation has been added to the reference list. See line 596 – 597.
Para starting Line 147 not necessary for paper.
The paragraph has been deleted.
Part 3: the title is "in Africa" and only 2 countries are expanded upon, even though there are 3 countries represented in the authorship and 54 countries in Africa. If SA is the only one with a pathway, then that should be clarified or explained as to why SA and Nigeria are the only ones listed.
Title edited to
The Veterinarian’s Role in Biocontainment Research Animal Facilities and Prevention of Spread of Pathogens: A Case of Nigeria and South Africa.
Line 81 – 88 added.
By focusing on Nigeria and South Africa, the manuscript aims to provide a detailed and practical exploration of successful biocontainment strategies and the challenges faced, thereby offering valuable lessons for other countries in the region. Nigeria and South Africa are recognized as regional leaders in veterinary research and pathogen control. Their advancements and proactive measures set benchmarks for other African nations. The established protocols and research from these countries serve as models that can be replicated across the continent to enhance biocontainment and pathogen control efforts.
Section 4: in the para 204-215, this might be a nice place to cite the BMBL and its recommendations if there are no equivalent African-country produced documents. https://www.cdc.gov/labs/BMBL.html . Is there an equivalent in the EU? https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en
Thank you for the suggestion, the references have been added to section 5.4. See line 295 – 302.
Section 5: you mention power fluctuations later and I think given global climate change, you should mention them in the para beginning 228 as well. Failure of power may mean that HVAC fails entirely especially if there is no generator power (or no power for installed generators).
Paragraph edited and the following statements (see line 222 – 224) have been added.
Electricity supply interruptions affects the smooth functioning of laboratory equipment and may result in accidental release of pathogens from laboratory equipment such as biosafety cabinets, laminar flow systems, and HVAC systems.
5.5.2: use of safe sharps where feasible. Not great for mice, but there are engineering solutions available for some sharps-related incidents with self-capping needles, etc. Might want to mention not re-using sharps (I am old enough to remember cleaning, recapping, and autoclaving needles to reuse in veterinary medicine).
Thank you, the following sentences(line 344 – 346) have been added.
We also recommend the use of self-capping needles whenever possible to reduce the risk of needlestick injuries. Additionally, it is important to desist from the practice of re using sharps to prevent cross contamination and the spread of infections.
5.6: instead of "without protective clothing," I would be more broad and say "under unsafe conditions" because some samples should be handled in biosafety cabinets, regardless of clothing.
Thank you for the suggestion, the statement (see line 363 – 366) has now been revised and reads as follows:
Furthermore, if sample containers are improperly labelled or inadequately marked, there is a possibility that individuals may handle the samples under unsafe conditions e.g., without appropriate protective clothing, potentially leading to spread of infection.
Section 6: the OIE isn't the OIE anymore. It is WOAH. Please change all references in the document. https://www.woah.org/en/home/
The reference has been updated. See line 617 - 618.
Line 393-395 doesn't seem relevant.
Thank you for the suggestion, the sentence has been deleted.
6.2: line 424, change this to should, not must, as not every experiment is going to have a clearly defined endpoint but you could say something like "death as an endpoint studies should be rare and strongly justified to the relevant ethical authority".
The sentence has been revised, the word “must” has been replaced with “should”. See line 445
Section 8: remove 549-550.
Thank you for the suggestion, the sentence has been deleted.
Section 6.5 should be first.
Thank you for the suggestion, section 6.5 now moved up and is now section 6.1. see lines 387 – 406.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Only place that needs light editing is section 7, lines 496-503.
The paragraph has now been revised and grammatical errors corrected. See lines 496 - 505
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript titled "The Veterinarians Role in Biocontainment Research Animal Facilities and Prevention of Spread of Pathogens in Africa" describes the risks of working in biocontainment and potential areas that could lead to pathogen release. The manuscript also discusses the role of vets in such biocontainment research. Overall, the manuscript provides a well rounded overview of biocontainment research and sources of potential pathogen release. A variety of topics were discussed. The authors also discuss the importance of veterinarians in research yet there is a shortage of well trained vets to work in biocontainment labs. I provide the following comments for consideration:
Citations are not in numerical order. Please correct.
Line 41: Provide citation for Law and Segreto et al.
Line 228-229: Please provide citation.
Section 5.4. Please provide citation where experiments with higher BSL pathogen is performed at a lower BSL. This should never occur. So this is a confusing section implying this occurs in the real world.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Citations are not in numerical order. Please correct.
References have been corrected and put in numerical order.
Line 41: Provide citation for Law and Segreto et al.
Citation added to the reference list. See line 575 – 576 and line 578
Line 228-229: Please provide citation.
Citation added. See line 598 – 599.
Section 5.4. Please provide citation where experiments with higher BSL pathogen is performed at a lower BSL. This should never occur. So this is a confusing section implying this occurs in the real world.
Thank you for your feedback. The concern about the inappropriate conduct of experiments involving higher BSL pathogens in lower BSL settings is indeed critical. The manuscript's intention was to underscore the risks and potential consequences of such practices, which are universally recognized as breaches of biosafety protocols.
- Clarification of Intent: The statement was meant to highlight the theoretical risks and the importance of strict adherence to biosafety guidelines, not to suggest that this practice is acceptable or commonly occurring. We apologize for any confusion caused and will clarify this point in the manuscript.
- Citation and Correction: To address the reviewer's concern, we did not find direct citations documenting instances of higher BSL pathogens being deliberately worked with in lower BSL settings, as this would be a serious violation of established biosafety standards. Instead, existing literature discusses the importance of proper biosafety levels and the potential risks associated with their breach.
- Revised Section: We revised the manuscript to reflect that any deviation from prescribed BSL protocols poses a significant risk. The revised text emphasize that all experiments must adhere to the appropriate biosafety level to prevent accidental pathogen release and ensure the safety of personnel and the environment. See lines 295 – 303.
We appreciate your diligence in ensuring the accuracy and clarity of the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I thank the authors for addressing my comments directly. I have no additional comments to share.
