Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version
I agree with Alert on this one: there are fanatical groups that would like to send humanity back to the stone age if they could - AlQaeda being a notable one of them, as this is one of its (reported) declared objectives. To religious fanatics of all persuasions (every religion has them), there are no innocent people and it would all just be 'the will of god'. There are able medics, scientists and highly qualified individuals all around the world, and past events have shown us that relgious extremism can embrace every level of society - not just the uneducated. Therefore provision of a step by step blueprint must be considered extremely inadvisable.
the difference between say smallpox and H5N1 is that it would be nigh on impossible for them to lay thier hands on smallpox, whereas in the case of H5N1 all they need to do is find an infected bird, which is not hard.
At the same time this research was important because the powers that be needed to KNOW that a human transmissible form of H5N1 is not only a theoretical risk, but eminently possible.
Therefore IMHO the research is both necessary and vital if we are to find effective means to counter such threats that can be available rapidly and to all; what needs temperance is the content of the published research. Critical information such as which specific mutations are required in a virus do not necessarily need to be published to the world at large. All legitimate research is carried out in BioLab 3+ facilities, and accredited researchers in these labs would and could be able to discreetly find out the specifics of the mutations involved to aid thier research. Whilst my scientific curiosity wants to know which mutations were involved, I dont actually need to know this fact - and so long as there is a mechanism for accredited researchers to get this information there is not any reasonable need for this information to be published - so I am for publication, but I am also for restricting this key information with a couple of caveats.
a) in the event of a pandemic outbreak such information should be rapidly and freely made available to all (as it will be all hands on deck at that stage) and b) that the information should be released on demand to accredited scientists.
This may mean that BL3+ lab staff need positive vetting - well is that such a bad thing? There is a balance that has to be struck here.
I agree with Alert on this one: there are fanatical groups that would like to send humanity back to the stone age if they could - AlQaeda being a notable one of them, as this is one of its (reported) declared objectives. To religious fanatics of all persuasions (every religion has them), there are no innocent people and it would all just be 'the will of god'. There are able medics, scientists and highly qualified individuals all around the world, and past events have shown us that relgious extremism can embrace every level of society - not just the uneducated. Therefore provision of a step by step blueprint must be considered extremely inadvisable.
the difference between say smallpox and H5N1 is that it would be nigh on impossible for them to lay thier hands on smallpox, whereas in the case of H5N1 all they need to do is find an infected bird, which is not hard.
At the same time this research was important because the powers that be needed to KNOW that a human transmissible form of H5N1 is not only a theoretical risk, but eminently possible.
Therefore IMHO the research is both necessary and vital if we are to find effective means to counter such threats that can be available rapidly and to all; what needs temperance is the content of the published research. Critical information such as which specific mutations are required in a virus do not necessarily need to be published to the world at large. All legitimate research is carried out in BioLab 3+ facilities, and accredited researchers in these labs would and could be able to discreetly find out the specifics of the mutations involved to aid thier research. Whilst my scientific curiosity wants to know which mutations were involved, I dont actually need to know this fact - and so long as there is a mechanism for accredited researchers to get this information there is not any reasonable need for this information to be published - so I am for publication, but I am also for restricting this key information with a couple of caveats.
a) in the event of a pandemic outbreak such information should be rapidly and freely made available to all (as it will be all hands on deck at that stage) and b) that the information should be released on demand to accredited scientists.
This may mean that BL3+ lab staff need positive vetting - well is that such a bad thing? There is a balance that has to be struck here.
Comment