As UC Davis responds to terrorist threats with new research and initiatives such as the proposed National Biocontainment Laboratory and the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security, it is also striving to come into compliance with new laws intended to combat terrorism.

"What's important is for us to have a safe and secure environment where faculty can carry on their research," said police captain Rita Spaur.

New laws include the USA-PATRIOT Act, passed by Congress soon after the 9/11 attacks; the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2002; and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act, which comes into force in 2003. But the federal government is also tightening regulations from older laws, such as the Export Control Act of 1979 and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations.

Taken together, the new laws and regulations do four things, said Vice Chancellor for Research Barry Klein. They demand increased security for some research labs; require much more detailed tracking of biological agents and restrict their use; restrict persons with certain backgrounds and some foreign graduate students from working in some areas; and impose restrictions on sharing some information, including unclassified research findings, among researchers.

The Patriot Act Compliance Team, chaired by police chief Calvin Handy, has the task of ensuring that the campus complies with the law. Spaur is co-chair of two subcommittees charged with implementing Patriot Act regulations on physical security and on human resources issues.

Restricting certain agents and users

The Patriot Act introduced broad new powers for law enforcement agencies to fight terrorism, broadened the scope of some existing statutes and toughened penalties for carrying out or supporting terrorist acts. But it also imposed new conditions on who can possess, transport or receive defined "select agents," especially a number of potential biological agents.

The list currently includes microbiological horrors such as smallpox, anthrax, botulism and plague, as well as lower-classed agents such as typhus, brucellosis, some strains of influenza and drug-resistant tuberculosis. The law imposes penalties of fines and up to 10 years in prison for unlawful possession of select agents.

The Patriot Act bans some groups of people, defined as "restricted persons," from working with select agents. Restricted persons include citizens of Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Sudan and Libya, who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents. The definition also includes anyone under indictment or charged with serious crimes; drug users; or someone dishonorably discharged from the military. Under the act, employers may have to conduct background checks on researchers working in sensitive areas to ensure that they do not fall into these categories.

Exactly which faculty, staff and students will need background checks, and how those checks will be done, has not yet been decided, Spaur said. In mid-December, the federal government is expected to issue regulations, providing more guidance. "If implemented, background checks are going to require a significant amount of staff time," Spaur said. It is possible that the checks might be done by the U.S. Department of Justice, or that the regulations might reduce the scope of the Act and require fewer background checks.

Tightening toxins protocols

The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Protection Act, together with the USDA Farm Bill, expands and implements parts of the Patriot Act. Under the Bioterrorism Act, UC is required to keep lists of agents and toxins that represent a potential hazard and follow tighter safety procedures for transporting and storing agents.

"It's a heck of a lot more work," said Carl Foreman, who, as director of Environmental Health and Safety, is responsible for ensuring that the campus follows the new regulations on biological and chemical agents. As required, Foreman recently completed a list of the select agents held on campus. The lists were part of an effort by the federal government to build an inventory of biological agents and find out where they were held.

Foreman expects researchers will see only an incremental increase in paperwork as new regulations to monitor biological select agents come in to force, with most of the extra work falling on his department and the campus police. "Our workload's really going to jump," he said.

The campus Patriot Act Security Commit-tee, chaired by Spaur and Foreman, is checking the locations of select agents on campus to ensure they are properly secured. Spaur said this mostly meant securing work areas, rather than building fences and gates. "It gives us an opportunity to look at all our labs and hazardous materials, even if they're not on the list," she said. It's likely that the list of select agents - and therefore the people and locations affected - will grow over time, she said.

USDA endorses campus practices

Over the summer, the USDA conducted an audit on security measures for the handling of biological agents, chemicals and radioactive materials at 23 land-grant universities, including UC Davis, Foreman said. The aim was to determine best practices for handling, tracking and securing materials that could damage human health or agricultural production. A number of UC Davis practices, such as the user authorization process, were endorsed by USDA and are likely to be included in national guidelines, Foreman said.

Export control and ITAR regulations, which have been in force for some years, are intended to prevent trafficking of technology with military applications. This can include, for example, research in computer security, cryptography or fluid dynamics. They also restrict citizens of non-NATO countries from accessing certain laboratories, applied research information or equipment such as firearms, explosives, communications technology, aircraft and military or space electronics.

New export control and ITAR regulations narrow the definition of "fundamental" research, which is not restricted, as opposed to applied research, which is, Klein said. Previously, universities carrying out unclassified research were not required to accept restrictions on publication and sharing of information and data. The new regulations also expand the definition of "export" to include phone calls, e-mails and personal visits or tours of laboratories.

The problem with publications

Restrictions on publications are causing headaches for universities around the country, which traditionally have policies supporting free dissemination of information, said Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Lynne Chronister. New grants from the U.S. Air Force, Army, NASA and the Department of Energy have been affected by clauses restricting publication, although the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the federal agencies responsible for most grant funding on campus, have not introduced such clauses. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, an agency of the Department of Defense, is also not including publication restrictions in grant contracts, Chronister said.

For Bruno Olshausen, an associate professor at the Center for Neuroscience, such changes mean that he can't take up a grant awarded in January 2002 by the Federal Aviation Administration to study how the brain recognizes objects. A clause in the contract that gives the FAA the right to review publications and block release of research it deems related to aviation security has sent the grant into limbo, as University of California policy rejects such restrictions.

Olshausen says the FAA agrees it's unlikely his research in fundamental neuroscience would actually be affected by the rule. "It's a problem of principle for the university," he said.

The university does permit restrictions on publication in some circumstances, Klein said. For example, graduate students enrolled at UC Davis but working at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory sign a contract allowing the Department of Energy to review publications before submission. Faculty also are able to pursue classified research at the Livermore lab, but students cannot take on classified projects.

Research projects at LLNL are treated differently because the lab is a classified facility owned by the Department of Energy but administered by UC, Klein said. The university accepts publication restrictions on behalf of the lab.

• future in flux

Klein also is concerned about political problems at the federal level. Congress has yet to pass the budget, leaving agencies dependent on a series of continuing resolutions. This week Congress is expected to pass legislation for a U.S. Department of Homeland Security that will carve funds and agencies from other departments such as health, defense, transportation and energy. Funds for research related to homeland security will likely be moved to the new department, but it's unknown whether that money will still be spent on research projects or directed to new priorities.

"We're in an entirely new game where the rules are in a state of flux," Klein said.