Few people are likely to choose to live next door to a laboratory that handles deadly germs. The leak of foot-and- mouth disease from the Institute of Animal Health in Surrey last year was a reminder that accidents do happen, even in supposedly secure facilities. A similar incident at a medical lab studying human disease would be much more worrying, not least because it might be a tempting target for terrorists.

That explains why many residents of Somers Town, Central London, have expressed concern about plans for a clinical science hub in the heart of the capital. The £500million UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation (UKCMRI), to be built near St Pancras station, will house 1,500 scientists, studying fields such as cancer, stem cells and bird flu. It moved closer to realisation this week when the purchase of the site was confirmed.

Gordon Brown has hailed the UKCMRI as pivotal to British science, providing unique opportunities for translating basic discoveries into therapies.

The project, however, has been opposed by local groups who want the site to be used for social housing. Some are now claiming that it poses an unacceptable security risk.

The putative danger is from a “containment level four” (CL4) lab, for handling highly infectious pathogens. It is likely that the UKCMRI will have such a facility, because the new facility replaces another research institute that does. But while residents' fears are understandable, they are misplaced. As a committee of MPs ruled on Wednesday, there is no reason why such a lab could not operate safely in an urban area.

First, CL4 facilities minimise the chances of the accidental release of pathogens. Rooms are negatively pressurised so that air flows out only through filters that remove 99.997 per cent of particles. Security-vetted staff must wear special clothing, and shower on their way out. All waste is sterilised. The Surrey incident, of course, showed that containment is never foolproof, but it occurred in an ageing and underfunded facility. The London lab will be state-of-the-art.

The hazard posed by a terrorist attack or accident is also lower than it might appear. The most dangerous pathogens to be studied at the UKCMRI will be influenza, tuberculosis and malaria. All are killed at temperatures of between 50C and 120C - a bomb or fire would incinerate most of the germs.

Any that did survive would be dispersed widely by the explosion or flames, and, while that sounds dangerous, it is actually reassuring.

To become infected by any of these germs, you need to be exposed to quite a high concentration. Dispersal also means dilution. In the case of malaria, there is a further barrier to infection: mosquitoes are not exactly endemic in London.

A terrorist who infiltrated a lab, or a disgruntled employee, of course could release a pathogen deliberately, but this is a risk whether facilities are in London or Lincolnshire. Vetting procedures, not location, are the proper defence.

The proposed London centre will also bring great benefits. On a local level, it will create jobs and improve infrastructure. And it is of national importance to the development of medical treatments and disease surveillance. As the Commons report made clear, it is critical that the UK has the capacity to study dangerous germs. Biosecure facilities are central to our defences against the emergence of new diseases such as pandemic flu.

They have to go somewhere, and the UKCMRI is as logical a place for them as any. Central London was chosen because of its attractiveness to world-class scientists, and it makes sense to give them what they need. If the committee planning the institute decides that it should include a CL4 lab, it should be built. All of us have much to gain and local people have little to fear.

Mark Henderson is Science Editor of The Times

Explore Health

• Expert Advice

• Health Features

• Mental Health

• Alternative Medicine

• Child Health

• Health Club