Are the biotechnology firms in Cambridge a blessing or a curse?

At the City Council session last night, concerned members of the public and Cambridge Director of Environmental Health Samuel Lipson discussed lab safety in Cambridge, the home of 155 biotechnology firms.

Under particular scrutiny was the proposed increase in the number of “level three” biosafety labs. According to a Cambridge Public Health Department publication, “level three” labs house airborne agents associated with serious or lethal diseases and are subject to higher standards of safety procedure and disposal than lower level labs.

Fourth generation East Cambridge resident and attorney Marie E. Saccoccio called the presence of “level three” labs in her densely populated part of the city, home to three senior citizen housing buildings and two charter schools, the worst idea she had ever heard.

“These labs are right up against the projects but people live there. It may put a lot of money into the city coffers but it’s off the backs of the poor,” she said.

Some residents, including Terrence F. Smith, the director of government affairs for the Cambridge Chamber of Commerce, said that thanks to the taxes paid by the biotechnology firms, Cambridge is able to provide extensive programs for its low-income residents while maintaining relatively low property taxes.

In September, biotech lab developer Alexandria Real Estate, Inc. applied for a zoning change that would allow it to construct buildings taller than those currently allowed under East Cambridge zoning rules.

Some residents said they believed the meeting was called to facilitate Alexandria’s plans for development.

But City Manager Robert W. Healey denied that the meeting had anything to do with zoning regulations, stating that it was meant to address existing biosafety rules.

In 1976, Cambridge became the first city in the world to pass biosafety regulations, setting the standard for other labs around the world, Lipson said.

Lipson acknowledged concerns regarding the biological hazards of the lab, stating that there is a tiny possibility for the genetically altered pathogens to regain the ability to replicate and become infectious again. But he called it “so statistically implausible that the likelihood becomes nearly incalculable.”

Lipson said he felt confident that the city’s biotech labs posed no risk to Cambridge residents.

“I’m more concerned about the risk from the amount of ammonia being stored in the old candy factories,” he said.

—Staff writer Sarah J. Howland can be reached at showland@fas.harvard.edu.