In the world of infectious disease research and development, professionals can’t afford to base their work on biosafety inaccuracies—and as the often-botched response to COVID-19 indicated, the public should be intolerant of such errors, as well.
As environmental, health, and safety (EHS) experts, we know that biosafety lapses can lead to operational errors—and potentially catastrophic disruption. However, the world of entertainment is laxer and willing to let mistakes or inaccuracies creep into the public consciousness. This can have serious ramifications—as knowledge of biological dangers can be a matter of life and death—both in our work life—and as citizens.
What Is “The Hot Zone” About?
With that in mind, we’d like to share an example of where a famous author gets biosafety facts wrong: Richard Preston’s book, “The Hot Zone.” Admittedly, this is a gripping account of the emergence of filoviruses like Ebola and Marburg. (It was so popular, it spawned a television miniseries with high-profile stars like Juliet Margulies.)
While “The Hot Zone” excels in creating suspense, however, it is riddled with biosecurity and biosafety inaccuracies. Yes, some credit the book with raising public awareness of highly pathogenic viruses. But it also perpetuates misinformation about laboratory safety, containment procedures, and the risks of emerging infectious diseases.
To set the record straight, below are five key biosafety and biosecurity inaccuracies, distortions, and omissions.
Biosafety Inaccuracy 1: Exaggeration of Ebola’s Airborne Transmission Potential
One of the most misleading “Hot Zone” suggestions is that Ebola is airborne. The book claims that the virus can be transmitted through the air between infected primates and humans. This assertion lacks scientifical validation.
True, there is lab-based evidence that droplets can transmit filoviruses over short distances, but there has been no confirmed case of airborne Ebola transmission in humans. The exaggeration of airborne transmission risk fuels unnecessary panic and misrepresents the actual routes of Ebola virus transmission (primarily via direct contact with infected bodily fluids).
It is very unlikely for Ebola to mutate in a way that changes this transmission. Since its discovery in 1976, it has been proven to be a stable virus with a relatively constant mutation rate. Samples from 1976 and 2014 have a difference of about 3%, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
Biosafety Inaccuracy 2: Mischaracterization of Biosafety Protocols at USAMRIID
The book portrays biosafety procedures at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) as chaotic and haphazard. In reality, USAMRIID is a highly regulated facility that adheres to stringent biosafety and biosecurity protocols.
The depiction of scientists working in BSL4 laboratories as constantly at risk of exposure due to minor lapses is an oversimplification. While laboratory work with high-consequence pathogens carries inherent risks, these are mitigated through strict procedural controls, advanced containment technologies, and extensive personnel training—details that are largely absent from “The Hot Zone.”
Biosafety Inaccuracy 3: Misrepresentation of the Reston Virus Outbreak
“The Hot Zone” dramatizes the 1989 Reston virus outbreak, where an Ebola-like filovirus was discovered in monkeys in a Virginia facility. Preston’s narrative suggests that the event nearly resulted in a catastrophic human outbreak, but this is misleading.
Reston virus (while classified as an Ebola species) has never been shown to cause disease in humans. In fact, the animal handler identified as the outbreak source never developed any illness during monitoring. The suggestion this event could have triggered an epidemic ignores the significant biological differences between Reston virus and its deadly counterparts, Ebola Zaire, Sudan, and others.
Biosafety Inaccuracy 4: Sensationalized Depictions of Infection Symptoms
For a book about the Ebola virus, “The Hot Zone” presents a highly exaggerated portrayal of the disease’s symptoms. While the virus is a severe and often fatal illness, the book indulges in hyperbole when discussing symptoms. It depicts the course of the disease as involving excessive bleeding, rapid tissue liquefaction, and nearly instant death. This isn’t exactly the case.
In reality, while hemorrhagic symptoms do occur, they are not as extreme or as universally present as the book implies. The majority of Ebola-related fatalities are from multi-organ failure and shock, rather than the explosive bleeding scenarios Preston depicts in “The Hot Zone.”
Biosafety Inaccuracy 5: Misrepresentation of the Relationship of Biosafety Ethics and Regulatory Oversight
“The Hot Zone” fails to provide an accurate depiction of the United States’ extensive regulatory framework that governs biosafety and biosecurity. High-containment laboratories operate under strict oversight from agencies such as the CDC, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
These institutions enforce rigorous protocols to prevent accidental exposures and biosecurity threats. The book focuses on building fear of imagined dangers—but neglects to highlight the rigorous ethical and procedural considerations that actually govern high-risk pathogen research.
Avoid Biosafety Inaccuracies: Talk to Experts
So, on any level, is the book “The Hot Zone” true? Not scientifically, at least. While the book is an engaging thriller, it’s not an accurate depiction of real-world biosafety and biosecurity practices. The book is riddled with biosafety inaccuracies that misinform the public and cause cause chaos and confusion to readers.
To summarize, it:
- Amplifies fears about airborne transmission
- Misrepresents laboratory safety protocols
- Exaggerates the impact of the Reston virus
- Distorts Ebola symptoms to create fear
- Omits crucial regulatory oversight details
Misinformation about emerging infectious diseases can contribute to unnecessary panic and hinder effective public health responses. All the more reason to avoid relying on faulty and inaccurate information in the quest for safe and successful operations. Professionals in virology and pandemic preparedness need to make judgements based on scientifically accurate sources—rather than sensationalized accounts. It’s non-negotiable.
At Triumvirate Environmental, our extensive biosafety consulting experience and industrial hygiene services experience prevent biosafety errors from affecting organizations involved in many sorts of sensitive R&D. We rely on evidence-based guidance at all times, with support from the best brains in the business. Have questions about biosafety or biosecurity? Talk to us today.
(Editor’s note: Christopher Hamilton, EHS Consultant with Triumvirate Environmental, contributed extensively to this blog.)
