Industry Insights

World BioHazTec has been a leader in biosafety and biosecurity since its inception in 1995. Over the years, we have successfully completed numerous groundbreaking projects and received prestigious awards, showcasing our dedication to excellence and innovation.

background decorative image
Man wearing a suit speaking

The BMBL vs. the NIH DRM: Intent Meets Design

When planning or operating a biocontainment laboratory, two cornerstone documents are frequently referenced: the Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL) and the NIH Design Requirements Manual (NIH DRM). While often mentioned together, they serve distinct purposes. The BMBL defines the intent and biosafety principles, while the NIH DRM translates that intent into specific design and construction requirements. Together, they ensure laboratories are both conceptually sound and technically compliant. A Brief History The BMBL was first published in 1984 as a collaborative effort between the CDC and NIH to provide standardized biosafety guidance across U.S. research laboratories. Now in its 6th Edition, the BMBL has become the gold standard reference for biosafety practices worldwide. The NIH DRM, on the other hand, originated as a facility design guide for NIH projects and has since evolved into a detailed, regularly updated manual that sets design and engineering expectations for biomedical research laboratories. While the BMBL grew out of biosafety practice and policy, the DRM emerged from the need to ensure consistency and safety in laboratory infrastructure. The BMBL: Defining Intent The BMBL (now in its 6th Edition) sets out the “what” and “why” of biosafety. It outlines the risk-based principles and operational expectations needed to protect laboratory workers, the community, and the environment. For example, the BMBL states that: Laboratories must maintain negative pressure relative to adjacent spaces. Surfaces should be smooth, impervious, and easy to clean. Engineering controls and safety equipment must be certified and tested annually. These requirements establish goals, but they do not prescribe exact dimensions, tolerances, or engineering solutions. The NIH DRM: Defining Design The NIH DRM, on the other hand, provides the “how.” It offers detailed technical specifications for architects, engineers, and commissioning agents to follow when designing, constructing, or certifying biomedical research facilities. Where the BMBL requires negative pressure, the DRM might specify: The exact pressure differential values (e.g., - 0.05” w.g.). Systems and components parameters performance requirements. What type of engineering controls and monitoring systems must be installed. This level of specificity makes the DRM indispensable in turning biosafety principles into verifiable design criteria. Compliance and NIH Funding It is also important to note that institutions receiving NIH funding for biomedical research facilities are generally required to follow the NIH DRM. For example, organizations awarded construction or renovation grants under the NIH often must demonstrate compliance with DRM requirements as part of their project scope. In these cases, adherence to the DRM is not optional — it is a condition of funding, ensuring that federally supported facilities meet uniform standards for biosafety, containment, and long-term sustainability. Three Examples: BMBL Intent vs. NIH DRM Design Directional Airflow and Pressure Differentials BMBL: Requires negative pressure relative to adjacent areas and directional airflow to prevent contamination spread. NIH DRM: Specifies exact differential pressure setpoints, monitoring devices, alarm requirements, redundancy requirements, and expected systems response during failures conditions. Materials and Finishes BMBL: States that surfaces must be sealed, non-porous, and resistant to chemicals to allow for easy cleaning and decontamination. NIH DRM: Details acceptable materials (e.g., epoxy resin flooring), minimum coving heights, sealant specifications, inspection procedures, and how penetrations should be sealed to maintain integrity. Monitoring, Alarms, and Verification BMBL: Requires laboratories to have visible indicators for directional airflow, alarms for ventilation system failures, and annual certification of HEPA filters. NIH DRM: Defines commissioning requirements to verify if the design intent has been met and containment has not been compromised during commissioning and re-verification cycles. Why Both Are Necessary The BMBL provides the vision and principles: ensuring biosafety practices are risk-based, adaptable, and grounded in scientific intent. The NIH DRM provides the execution details: ensuring that those principles are realized in the built environment through specific engineering and architectural standards. One without the other creates gaps: relying only on the BMBL risks inconsistent design interpretations, while relying only on the DRM risks treating biosafety as a checklist without context. Together, they create a balanced framework that protects people, research, and the environment. Closing Thoughts For private institutions, government, universities, or any organization preparing to open or operate a BSL-3 facility, understanding the interplay between the BMBL and the NIH DRM is essential. The BMBL tells us what must be true and why it matters. The NIH DRM tells us how to build, test, and verify so that intent becomes reality. Aligning both is the key to safe, compliant, and sustainable laboratory operations. For more information or to discuss how these principles apply to your facility, contact World BioHazTec today to schedule a free consultation with our biosafety and biocontainment experts. References Biosafety in Microbiological and Biomedical Laboratories (BMBL), 6th Edition. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; National Institutes of Health. June 2020. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/97733?utm NIH Design Requirements Manual — LIVE Version. Office of Research Facilities. August 2024. https://orf.od.nih.gov/TechnicalResources/Pages/DesignRequirementsManual.aspx

Read More
Two different hands holding ice cream cones

Waffle Cones and Recliners: How the Public Health Campaign Against TB Changed American Culture.

Americans in recent years have become quite familiar with the ways in which infectious disease outbreaks can drastically change our everyday lives. The impact of disease can profoundly impact a community—upending routines and rattling nerves as it spreads from person to person. This is not a new phenomenon in American history. An example of this was the fight against tuberculosis (TB), which not only led to the country's very first public health campaign but also transformed how we engage with certain everyday practices—like eating ice cream. Public Health Education By the late 19th century, German physician Robert Koch had confirmed that tuberculosis was caused by bacteria, but it took time for this discovery to permeate public consciousness. Many people were still unaware of how the disease spread and gave little attention to the behaviors that contributed to disease transmission. It was common for family members, or even strangers, to share a drinking cup, even with those who were sick. No Spitting Up until the late 19th century, spitting in public was considered acceptable social behavior in America, whether it was merely spitting saliva or discarding one's chewing tobacco. With Knopf’s guidance, in the 1890s the New York City Health Department, under the leadership of Dr. Hermann M. Biggs, launched a massive campaign to educate the public and reduce transmission. The “War on Tuberculosis” public health campaign raised awareness about the dangers of shared drinking cups and public spitting. Many states began passing laws banning spitting in public spaces. Instead, the use of special spittoons, which were to be carefully cleaned on a regular basis, was encouraged. With the increased knowledge of the contagious nature of tuberculosis and other diseases at the turn of the century, flyers and newspapers warned Americans against "the filthy habit" of spitting in public. Before long, spitting in public spaces came to be considered crude, and drinking from shared bottles was frowned upon as well. These changes in public behavior helped successfully reduce the spread of TB. The Waffle Cone Ice cream had become popular in 19th-century England. The fad, once accessible only to nobility, made its way to the British general public and then ultimately to America in the form of the “penny lick”. A "penny lick" was a tiny portion of ice cream in a small glass container that vendors sold for only one penny. The glass was usually made with a thick glass base and a shallow depression on top in which the ice cream was placed. Despite this design creating the illusion of a larger portion, it often contained merely just one lick's worth of ice cream. Customers licked the glasses clean, returned them, and the vendor would then rinse the glass container in a bucket of water and reuse it for the next customer. It was hugely popular, and the demand for this inexpensive treat continued to rise. In their rush to serve as many penny licks as possible, most vendors were careless about properly cleaning their glass containers. This resulted in the transmission of contagious diseases like tuberculosis. Penny licks were banned in London in 1898, and while they were never officially prohibited in America, rising awareness of hygiene and disease prevention prompted ice cream vendors to find cleaner alternatives. Italo Marchiony worked as a pushcart vendor in the Manhattan area of New York City selling flavored ices and other frozen treats to customers. He sought an edible solution to the problems associated with penny lick glasses and developed a pastry cup to hold ice cream, which he patented in 1903. In 1904, at the St. Louis World’s Fair, another ice cream vendor, Ernest A. Hamwi, independently developed his own ice cream cone made from a crisp waffle-like pastry. With the decline of the unsanitary glass penny lick containers, this innovation quickly caught on, and by 1924, vendors were producing 245 million cones annually. What started as a sanitary response to a public health issue became a beloved staple in dessert culture. Other impacts on American Culture Shorter Skirts for Women At the turn of the 20th century, women’s fashion typically featured long skirts that reached the ground. However, as knowledge about TB spread, it became clear that long skirts could drag along germ-infested sidewalks, increasing the risk of disease transmission. As a result, women began shortening their hemlines to avoid this potential hazard, marking a subtle but significant shift in fashion. The Decline of Beards In the late 1800s, beards were popular in the US and Europe, both as a symbol of white masculinity, as well as a signal of health. Ironically, many men also sported beards to cosmetically disguise the facial scarring left from previous bouts with smallpox. Before the advent of germ theory, people thought diseases spread through fumes and dust, and beards were believed to serve as a natural filter against illness. As late as 1881, just a year before the tuberculosis bacteria was identified, The St. James’s Magazine claimed that growing a beard was the quickest way to protect oneself from disease. Following Koch’s discovery proving that germs facilitated the spread of tuberculosis, the trend began changing. In the 1890s, nurses had started shaving patients’ beards to bring down their risk of transmitting disease, pointing to studies suggesting that beards could accidentally entrap tuberculosis-laden spittle.  However, there is no factual scientific evidence supporting the idea that beards trap germs. Yet, by the time the flu pandemic struck the US in 1918, beards were declining in popularity with men opting for clean-shaven looks associated with professionalism and youthful vigor. Additionally, the rise of disposable razors made shaving at home more accessible. As a result, showing off a smooth face became the new trend for American males. Hygiene Practices and Public Health Campaigns As tuberculosis awareness grew, public health campaigns emphasized the importance of hygiene. Common practices such as covering your mouth when coughing and using a handkerchief were promoted. Institutions like libraries fumigated books, and banks sterilized coins. Public health posters even advised against kissing children to prevent the spread of disease. Schools embraced the "Modern Health Crusade," encouraging children to wash their hands before meals, brush their teeth, and sleep with their windows open for fresh air. The Sanatorium Influence: Reclining Chairs Sanatoriums frequently used different types of reclining or "cure chairs" to aid in patient treatment. These chairs, often placed on porches, had adjustable backs that allowed patients to tilt them for a comfortable, semi-reclined position while enjoying fresh air. In the early 20th century, wealthier individuals began buying sleek, fashionable versions of these chairs to enjoy the health benefits of sunbathing at home. By the 1950s, these cure chairs had evolved into a symbol of modernist style in furniture design. Credit: https://www.saranaclake.com/story/2016/03/saranac-lake-classic-cure-chair Playgrounds, Public Parks, and Recreation Centers In the 1920s, public health reformers advocated for more outdoor recreation to improve national health. They believed that promoting physical activity in parks and public spaces could help prevent diseases like tuberculosis. As a result, cities began beautifying parks and creating recreational spaces. Additionally, the encouragement of larger recreational spaces played a role in creating more space between buildings and thus reducing overcrowding. In New York, Central Park became known as "The Lungs of the City," reflecting the idea that green spaces could improve both mental and physical health. Impact on Migration and Architecture The fight against tuberculosis also influenced architecture. As doctors recommended fresh air and good ventilation as part of disease prevention, homes began to feature more porches and windows. The idea of escaping crowded, muggy Eastern cities and moving to drier, sunnier climates for better health gained popularity, especially in places like Los Angeles and Colorado Springs. This migration was so significant that, in 1872, about one-third of Colorado’s population had tuberculosis, seeking relief in the dry, healthy air. These public health campaigns against TB led to lasting changes in American culture—from the way we eat ice cream to how we think about hygiene and public health. The ripple effects of these efforts are still with us today, shaping everything from fashion to our public spaces. References American Experience. (2015). The Forgotten Plague: TB’s Surprising Results. Retrieved from                https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/plague-know/ Foss, Katherine A. (2020). How Epidemics of the Past Changed the Way Americans Lived. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-epidemics-past-forced-americans-promote-health-ended-up-improving-life-this-country-180974555/ Graham, Lerone. (2023). The Complete History of The Ice Cream Cone. Retrieved from https://www.thedailymeal.com/1276928/complete-history-ice-cream-cone/ (2024). The Strange History of Ice Cream, From Spreading Tuberculosis To Sweet Summer Dessert. Retrieved from https://www.timesnownews.com/lifestyle/food/news/the-strange-history-of-ice-cream-from-spreading-tuberculosis-to-sweet-summer-dessert-article-109986556 Waters, Michael. (2020). A Brief History of Beards and Pandemics. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/3/30/21195447/beard-pandemic-coronavirus-masks-1918-spanish-flu-tuberculosis

Read More
Members of World BioHazTec including the President, Kerstin Haskell holding the proclamation

How a Simple Click Turned Into Maryland’s First “Biosafety Day”

By Kerstin Haskell, President, World BioHazTec and 2024–2025 President, Chesapeake Area Biological Safety Association (ChABSA) Back in January, I was on the State of Maryland’s website—why, I honestly can’t remember—but there on the homepage I saw a link: “Request a Proclamation.” Something about that link sparked a thought: What if ChABSA's annual symposium had an official proclamation to recognize biosafety and the professionals who safeguard our labs and communities every day? As the President of World BioHazTec and the 2024–2025 President of ChABSA (Chesapeake Area Biological Safety Association), I’m constantly thinking about how we can raise awareness and elevate the biosafety profession—not just within our community, but in the broader public sphere. This felt like a unique opportunity to do just that. So I clicked. What followed was a journey that reminded me of the power of persistence, collaboration, and simply asking. After clicking through, I realized I had to write the proclamation myself. I turned to artificial intelligence, which helped me shape the language, structure, and tone—guiding me through examples and best practices for proclamation writing. With that support, I drafted the text and submitted it through the official portal. Then I waited. A week went by. Silence. I started wondering if it had gone into a bureaucratic black hole. That’s when I remembered my colleague and friend, Brian Castleberry at the Maryland Department of Commerce. I had met Brian through World BioHazTec’s participation in the 2023 Arab Health Show, which was supported by a Maryland export promotion grant for small businesses. I reached out, shared the proclamation request, and Brian kindly forwarded it to a deputy director at the Governor’s Office. Another month passed. Still nothing. Brian followed up again on my behalf (thank you, Brian!), and I continued to wait. Then came a stroke of serendipity. I was in Annapolis testifying before the Maryland House Ways and Means Committee on a proposed tax on life sciences services. Sitting beside me on the panel was Kelly Schulz, President of the Maryland Tech Council. I had long admired Kelly’s work supporting the state’s life sciences community, and this was my chance to finally meet her. After the hearing, we exchanged contact information and started texting. I told her about the proclamation and asked if she might be willing to help. Without hesitation, she said yes. Kelly advised me to follow up after the state’s budget cycle closed at the end of March. I did—and when we met in person, she followed up with the Governor’s Office...right there in front of me.  Around the same time, Tracey Brown, World BioHazTec’s Training Manager, who also serves as ChABSA’s Treasurer, reached out to our long-standing partners at the Universities at Shady Grove (USG). ChABSA has proudly supported USG’s Biosafety and Biosecurity Scholarship Program, and the relationship has grown through collaborative events and shared goals. In response to the outreach, Tom Clifford and Joyce Fuhrmann submitted a formal letter of support to the Governor’s Office, strongly advocating for the proclamation to recognize Biosafety Day. Then, just a week before the symposium, I received the news: Governor Wes Moore had officially proclaimed June 4, 2025, as “Biosafety Day” in Maryland. This would not have happened without the advocacy and belief of people like Brian, Kelly, Tom, Joyce, Tracey and others who understand the value of biosafety to Maryland’s workforce, research institutions, and public health system. It’s a reminder that biosafety professionals are making a difference every day—and that our work deserves to be seen and celebrated. Sometimes, all it takes is a click. And a follow-up. And a little courage to ask. Proclamation: Biosafety Day June 4, 2025 WHEREAS, The field of biosafety plays a critical role in protecting public health, scientific research, and the environment by ensuring the safe handling and containment of biological materials in laboratories and research settings; and WHEREAS, Biosafety professionals work diligently to establish and maintain policies, procedures and physical containment measures that prevent accidental exposure to harmful biological agents and promote the responsible use of biotechnology; WHEREAS, Maryland is home to one the nation’s strongest life sciences industries, employing more than 54,000 people across a wide range of roles in research and development, manufacturing, and laboratory operations; and WHEREAS, The Chesapeake Area Biological Safety Association will hold its 35th Scientific Symposium at the Universities at Shady Grove in Rockville, Maryland; and WHEREAS, Through ongoing training, inspections, risk assessments and containment measures, biosafety professionals uphold rigorous standards that protect against biological risks and support safe scientific progress; WHEREAS, The establishment of Biosafety Day serves as an opportunity to highlight the achievements of biosafety professionals, encourages collaboration across disciplines and raise awareness about the importance of effective biosafety programs and protocols. Now therefore, I, Wes Moore, Governor of the State of Maryland, do hereby proclaim June 4, 2025 as Biosafety Day in Maryland, and do commend this observation to all of our citizens.  

Read More

Top Picks

IACET Accredited Provider logo

World BioHazTec is an Accredited Provider (AP) of the International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET). As an IACET Accredited Provider, World BioHazTec offers IACET CEUs for its learning events that comply with the ANSI/IACET Continuing Education and Training Information.

Level Up

Ready to Practice Safe Science?

Let's Get Started