formulating definitive estimations exploring definitive insights assembling contingent insights generating contingent predictions generating definitive understanding mapping the future predicting quantitative wisdom mapping probable forecasts forecasting quantitative predictions composing predictive futures delivering predictive insights calculating precise contingencies formulating definitive contingencies calculating intelligent estimations

Question

Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Will a fatality of one or more per year due to accidental infections in "select agent" pathogen research labs be reported in the next year?

In the US, medical research on potentially human-harmful viral and bacterial pathogen and other "select agents" generally takes place in Biosafety level 3 and level 4 labs.

The US select agents program regulates the identification, acquisition, use, transfer, and disposal of select agents. Part of this program is a detailed reporting system of the theft, loss, or accidental release of select agents.

A summary of the reports under this system from 2004-2010 by Henkel et al. found eleven laboratory-acquired infections (LAIs) during this period (along with 639 accidental "releases"), but none leading to human fatality. The report showed steadily and quickly increasing (> 29%/year) report numbers from 2004-2010, suggesting increasing reporting rates. (It is also likely that the number of labs working with select agents increased, and in-principle possible that the accident rate increased, but these seem unlikely to explain such a rapid rise.) This leaves open to question how many accidents (and LAIs) go unreported.

A 2006 literature review by Harding and Byers found a large number of LAIs, with updated statistics of 2033 LAIs and 37 deaths (with 13 deaths since 2005). These numbers are difficult to compare, as LAIs can occur without an identified accident leading to them.

A Google Scholar search of citations to Henkel et al. shows that it has been used to estimate accidental infection rates in a number of papers and reports, but reveals no more-recent followup summary based on the select agent reporting system.

Will a new publication based on select-agent reports reveal a per-year fatality rate of unity or greater?

To be definite, the question will resolve as positive if, by May 2017, a publication that cites Henkel at al. in a Google Scholar search, and is based on select agent reports, lists at least one LAI fatality that occurred in the most recent year -- or at least two fatalities between the most recent two years -- fully covered by the data used in the publication.

(Edited 4/25 to clarify that 1/year is a minimum for positive resolution.)

{{qctrl.predictionString()}}

Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.