• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
Robert Roos * News Editor

Nov 17, 2011 (CIDRAP News) ? A national biosecurity board that monitors "dual use" research is apparently worried about an as-yet-published study in which a mutant form of H5N1 avian influenza virus was found to be easily transmissible in ferrets, which are considered good models for flu in humans.

A National Public Radio (NPR) report today said the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) is scrutinizing the research by Dr. Ron Fouchier of Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands. The board provides guidance on biological research that has a legitimate purpose but could be misused to endanger public health.

Dr. Paul S. Keim, acting chair of the NSABB, said today that the board is conducting a review of H5N1 virus transmission in mammals, but because of the board's confidentiality rules, he could not give any details. Keim is director of pathogen genomics in the Translational Genomics Research Institute at Northern Arizona University.

Referring to the Office of Biotechnology Activities in the National Institutes of Health's Office of Science Policy, Keim told CIDRAP News, "We have now been directed by OBA staff that we can acknowledge that a review process on the H5N1 transmissibility in mammals is under way. We are not allowed to provide additional details."

The H5N1 virus causes human illness relatively rarely, but it is often deadly when it does, with a case-fatality rate of about 60% among cases confirmed by the World Health Organization. Though the virus has circulated in poultry in many countries since 2003, it has not gained the ability to spread easily in humans. Scientists worry that if it did gain that ability, it could spark a fearsome pandemic.

With the goal of identifying genetic changes that could lead to greater person-to-person transmissibility, a number of researchers have introduced mutations in the virus and studied how the mutant strains behaved in animals.

Fouchier gave a general description of his experiments at a European meeting in September, according to a news story published in Scientific American after the meeting. He and his team introduced various mutations into the virus and watched their effects on its ability to attach to human respiratory tract cells. They found that with as few as five single mutations, the virus could bind to nasal and tracheal cells, according to the story.

But when tested in ferrets, this mutant virus still didn't spread very easily through close contact. Fouchier and his team then undertook to let the virus evolve naturally?a project that he described as "really, really stupid," according to the story. They inoculated one ferret with the mutant virus, and after it got sick, they exposed a second ferret to infectious material from the first one.

After they repeated this process 10 times, "H5N1 became as easily transmissible as seasonal flu," the story said. Fouchier said he concluded from this that H5N1 viruses "can become airborne" and do not need to reassort with other mammalian flu viruses to do so.

The report quoted another expert, Albert Osterhaus, also of Erasmus University, as saying the individual mutations that Fouchier introduced have already occurred naturally in animals, but not together.

Further details about Fouchier's study have been hard to come by. In response to a CIDRAP News query last week, Fouchier said he couldn't comment on the study until it is published. Other flu experts, including those at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), also declined to discuss the study or didn't reply to queries last week.

The NPR report said the Fouchier study is the subject of a "fierce debate" among disease experts and is being reviewed by the NSABB. The experiment was criticized by some experts quoted in the NPR report.

"It's just a bad idea for scientists to turn a lethal virus into a lethal and highly contagious virus, and it's a second bad idea to publish how they did it so others can copy it," said Thomas V. Inglesby, MD, director of the Center for Biosecurity at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, who is not a member of the NSABB.

While biology has a culture of openness and relies on the full sharing of findings, occasional exceptions to this policy are warranted, and Fouchier's study calls for an exception, he told NPR.

It was not immediately clear just how the NSABB might influence whether and in what form Fouchier's findings would be published. The board makes recommendations on policies governing publication, public communication, and dissemination of dual use research methods and results, according to information on the OBA Web site. It is up to the federal government to convene relevant agencies to determine how to respond to the recommendations.

One previous case in which the NSABB influenced a research publication pertained to reports on the reconstruction of the 1918 pandemic flu virus using material from preserved tissue samples, according to Keim.

"In this case NSABB recommended that the papers be modified to better represent the biosafety aspects of the research and also to explain the positive benefits of the work to public health," he told CIDRAP News. "There were no restrictions recommended by NSABB on the actual data or limitations to the results distribution."

Some other recent studies have tested the ability of mutant or reassortant strains of H5N1 to replicate and spread in animals, but the findings were less dramatic than Fouchier's.

For example, the December issue of the Journal of Virology includes a study in which researchers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis inserted the hemagglutinin gene from a 1997 Hong Kong strain of H5N1 virus into a pandemic 2009 H1N1 virus. When this hybrid was grown serially in human lung epithelial cells, it became more pathogenic in mice, "suggesting that these viruses may easily adapt to humans and become more virulent," the report says. The authors concluded that natural reassortment between circulating 2009 H1N1 and H5N1 viruses could lead to viruses with increased pathogenicity in mammals.

Dr. Lynn Enquist, the Journal of Virology's editor-in-chief and a member of the NSABB, told NPR that the journal's staff carefully considered whether to publish the paper. He observed that the type of reassortant the scientists created could occur in nature.

Another recent study, by researchers from the CDC and Scripps Research Institute, suggested that it would take a series of complex changes for H5N1 viruses to achieve airborne transmissibility in ferrets.

They determined that a particular strain of H5N1, when modified with certain mutations from previous pandemic viruses, could spread in ferrets by direct contact but not by airborne respiratory droplets, according to their report in Virology. Only when they inserted a neuraminidase gene from a human flu virus did this virus achieve a modest ability to spread via respiratory droplets.

"The complex genetic changes required by a clade 2.2 H5N1 virus to reach a low level of transmissibility in ferrets would indicate that considerable functional evolution is still required for acquisition of transmissibility in humans," the report concludes.

See also:

Information about the NSABB

Nov 17 NPR report

Scientific American story describing Fouchier's study

Journal of Virology study abstract

Virology study abstract

October 2005 CIDRAP News report on re-creation of 1918 flu virus

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/avianflu/news/nov1711board.html
 
Re: CIDRAP: H5N1 transmission experiment stirs concern

Re: CIDRAP: H5N1 transmission experiment stirs concern

Scientists Brace for Media Storm Around Controversial Flu Studies

by Martin Enserink on 23 November 2011

ROTTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS?Locked up in the bowels of the medical faculty building here and accessible to only a handful of scientists lies a man-made flu virus that could change world history if it were ever set free.

The virus is an H5N1 avian influenza strain that has been genetically altered and is now easily transmissible between ferrets, the animals that most closely mimic the human response to flu. Scientists believe it's likely that the pathogen, if it emerged in nature or were released, would trigger an influenza pandemic, quite possibly with many millions of deaths.

In a 17th floor office in the same building, virologist Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Center calmly explains why his team created what he says is "probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make"?and why he wants to publish a paper describing how they did it. Fouchier is also bracing for a media storm. After he talked to ScienceInsider yesterday, he had an appointment with an institutional press officer to chart a communication strategy.

Fouchier's paper is one of two studies that have triggered an intense debate about the limits of scientific freedom and that could portend changes in the way U.S. researchers handle so-called dual-use research: studies that have a potential public health benefit but could also be useful for nefarious purposes like biowarfare or bioterrorism.

The other study?also on H5N1, and with comparable results?was done by a team led virologist Yoshihiro Kawaoka at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and the University of Tokyo, several scientists told ScienceInsider. (Kawaoka did not respond to interview requests.) Both studies have been submitted for publication, and both are currently under review by the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), which on a few previous occasions has been asked by scientists or journals to review papers that caused worries.

More / Sciencemag
 
Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

"A group of scientists is pushing to publish research about how they created a man-made flu virus that could potentially wipe out civilisation.

The deadly virus is a genetically tweaked version of the H5N1 bird flu strain, but is far more infectious and could pass easily between millions of people at a time.

The current strain of H5N1 has only killed 500 people and is not contagious enough to cause a global pandemic.

But their are fears the modified virus is so dangerous it could be used for bio-warfare, if it falls into the wrong hands."

Now, why on Earth would you create a virus like this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...warns-frightened-scientist.html#ixzz1erIdm1MN
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

This is an extreme overhype spreaded by a sensationalist dailynewspaper.

Experiments with ehnanced transmissible avian influenza viruses were performed in the past in high containment laboratories around the world without leakages, although an event like this may happen if a strict regulatory agencies control is not implemented.

The likelihood of an outbreak sparked by an genetic hacked H5N1 virus could not be excluded a priori if a rogue laboratory is able to gain the expertise and technology to do it but the actual usefulness of a move of this kind is not great I suspect.

In any case, ethical panels should taken into account every chances that a published study on how create or manipulate a potentially hazardous pathogen could have on public health safety.

Overall, people have to put these kind of news into perspective: every days thousands of individuals enter in contact with avian or animal origin influenza viruses offering opportunities to these pathogens to explore way to adapt to new human hosts; in other words, experiments are undergoing in nature without ethical panels surveys... (IOH)
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

http://www.losandes.com.ar/notas/20...ortal-esconden-miedo-bioterrorismo-609063.asp
Spanish to English translation

Discovery of a new virus extremely deadly and hide it for fear of bioterrorism
A variation of avian influenza virus H5N1. They discovered in the Netherlands. Do not want to give out the results because they fear that the information "falls into the wrong hands."

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Ironically, the study was commissioned by the U.S., now asks you not to publish.
Dutch researchers discovered how you can develop a variant of the so-called H5N1 "bird flu" to be contagious and deadly to humans, but the fact has opened a debate on whether to publish the results of their research for fear that could be used by terrorists as a biological weapon terrible. In the meantime, ordered the Dutch authorities to postpone the publication of the results of the study. The Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant reports that experts fear that the information falling into the hands of terrorists and that they use it to develop a biological weapon. The research was commissioned by the U.S. Agency for Medical Studies National Institutes of Health (NIH by the acronym). The center asked the Dutchman said Ron Fouchier, a professor of molecular virology linked to the Erasmus academic hospital, based in Rotterdam, to investigate whether The H5N1 bird flu virus could lead to a pandemic. But the results are now out of hand . The researchers presented the article containing the results of research to the scientific journal Science, but the wording decided to first present it to the office of the National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity, a U.S. advisory body in the field of biodiversity. According to the newspaper Amsterdamer De Volkskrant, the Dutch scientist declines to comment until they give the results of the investigation. At the same time, the decision to postpone, and possibly ban the publication of the article has sparked among researchers an intense debate on scientific freedom. It is also under review the results of a Japanese study on the subject, which has thrown results similar to those of the Dutch study. virologist Ab Osterhaus of Erasmus Medical Center believes that the publication of research results will not cause damage. "This is a very complex investigation, a virologist who really must be highly trained and very good to do this," said Osterhaus to the Dutch public television NOS.
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

I moved this thread from the UK forum to the discussion forum because this issue is not unique to the UK.

So what does everyone think - should the researchers be allowed to publish how to make a fully transmissible human to human H5N1 virus?
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

I moved this thread from the UK forum to the discussion forum because this issue is not unique to the UK.

So what does everyone think - should the researchers be allowed to publish how to make a fully transmissible human to human H5N1 virus?

I think it is obvious that you can't publish the whole detail to the public. There are individuals who seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction and use them no matter the cost. Such a virus would be the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, and you would simply be making those blueprints available to the whole world.

On the other hand, I also disagree with those who think this research should have been pre-empted due to this risk. We know now that an H5N1 pandemic is at least potentially possible, something that many scientists dismissed.

I wonder if they can find a way to publish something to make it obvious the general principle without giving away so much to make duplication of the experiment (followed by deliberate release) by terrorists possible.
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

"A group of scientists is pushing to publish research about how they created a man-made flu virus that could potentially wipe out civilisation.

The deadly virus is a genetically tweaked version of the H5N1 bird flu strain, but is far more infectious and could pass easily between millions of people at a time.

The current strain of H5N1 has only killed 500 people and is not contagious enough to cause a global pandemic.

But their are fears the modified virus is so dangerous it could be used for bio-warfare, if it falls into the wrong hands."

Now, why on Earth would you create a virus like this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...warns-frightened-scientist.html#ixzz1erIdm1MN

to sell news papers, its the stuff being mixed in the back room that you dont hear about u should worry. jokeintiphat:g aside its just plane ignorance,cultivate compassion,love,wisdom,peace will follow;);)
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

It would be crazy to publish the entire methodology. However, this isn't the first time something like this has happened. Scientists in Australia experimented with mice pox virus and created a strain for which the vaccine or prior infection provided no protection. The paper was published and revealed that a fairly easy genetic substitution in pox viruses could accomplish this result. The CDC duplicated the experiment successfully. The same genetic change in smallpox would render all the vaccine stockpiles useless and the entire world population would be vulnerable.

If these kinds of experiments continue in multiple nations, I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before one is released either accidentally or deliberately.
I moved this thread from the UK forum to the discussion forum because this issue is not unique to the UK.

So what does everyone think - should the researchers be allowed to publish how to make a fully transmissible human to human H5N1 virus?
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

. . . If these kinds of experiments continue in multiple nations, I'm afraid it's only a matter of time before one is released either accidentally or deliberately.

Everyday, Mother Nature experiments with novel diseases that could have terrible consequences for humankind. While we need to continue research that will help retard outbreaks of new and dangerous diseases, proper safeguards need to be implemented. Otherwise, I think JimO is correct, it will only be a matter of time before we self inflict a devastating disease onto the world's populations.
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

The research was presented in september , the focus at that time was : "What will the next pandemic look like ?" .

This research showed H5N1 is a possible candidate. Both Fouchier in the Netherlands and Kawaoka in Japan were asked to do this and they both proved the concept of a possible H5N1 pandemic. Also they showed the relevant indicators which are important for surveillance and further research for vaccins.

Some 10 days ago CIDRAP summarized the discussion, followed by many others.

A hype now indeed, worldwide.

Being no expert I want to say this: as far as I know this kind of research is happening all the time. That is why international rules for labs etc are issued.

Incidents can happen, have happened and probably will happen again. For instance: in 2007 the highly contagious FMD virus escaped from a lab in the UK, causing a local outbreak.

You can't stop human curiosity, you can't stop science. The methods of how to make an atomic bomb were published long ago. UN has rules and surveillance on nuclear research and production, all we can do is hope for the best or stop nuclear research.

Regarding the H5N1 research: this is not something you do in your back room. You need to be an expert, you need a highly specialized lab, etc., etc..

I would be surprised if the research will not be published.
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

Frankly, that is precisely why I don't worry so much about overpopulation.
Everyday, Mother Nature experiments with novel diseases that could have terrible consequences for humankind. While we need to continue research that will help retard outbreaks of new and dangerous diseases, proper safeguards need to be implemented. Otherwise, I think JimO is correct, it will only be a matter of time before we self inflict a devastating disease onto the world's populations.
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

For me it is a matter of human rights. If we allow the suppression of this paper, then what is next? And whose judgement?

We need to find a quicker method to protect against all influenza. The standard vaccine method is effective but it takes too long and protects only a tiny fraction of the world's population. This is the real issue.

What can billions of people do immediately to protect themselves and their loved ones from a virus threat?
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

As far as containment issues, I'm not sure why the lab would have to hold on to the virus after it was created. If the lab simply destroyed the virus at the end of the experiment, the risk of accidental release would be minimal. To me, the bigger issue is bioterrorism:

The world has survived quite well since the discovery of the atomic bomb. Part of that reason is that those countries that have discovered it know to keep the recipe a secret. Despite all their desire, terrorists that would want to build and use an atomic bomb have, fortunately, not been able to do so. I would like to think that part of that reason is that instructions on exactly how to do this have not been published to the general public.

Pandemic H5N1 is even more of a doomsday weapon than an atomic bomb. If we do not want the recpie for an atomic bomb "out there", we probably don't want a recipe for Pandemic H5N1 out there. After all, an atomic bomb at least requires some difficult to obtain materials (at least as far as I am aware!), whereas an H5N1 pandemic likely might require only an infected animal and the right procedure.
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

As the Cold War has taught us, it would be a sum-zero game.

The Mutual Ensured Destruction achieved by the simultaneous release of both 'old superpowers' (US & USSR) thermonuclear bombs would have create the condition for the end of human civilization, at least as we are used to think about it.

For an engineered pathogen, the game is also a sum-zero option: no one can build a safe vaccine or drug to protect his part from the destruction of global economy and society.

Further, a massive demise of populations could spark a N-bomb response toward the suspected nation recognized (not important if really responsible) as the epicentre of the disaster.

In other words, it is really useful to release or obscure a study that will not impact in the research of a cure or improve our knowledge in avian influenza virus ecology?

We need an ethical evaluation of research, as scientists are human beings and susceptible to error as all other, even the political bias or intimate egoism.

Science is the light of civilization but sometimes (as Kurt Vonnegut has taught us) a seemingly innocent invention could harm millions (do you remember ZyklonB, 731 Unit?).

In the recent past some faults were recognized in BSL-3 labs directed by renowned scientists and thus regulatory agencies have the obligation to ensure world population against people that for some reasons were or are trying to gain popularity or visibility through expensive and sometimes dangerous tests with live animals infected with highly pathogenic germs.

(IOH)
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

The same goes for smallpox. As I stated before, the genetic manipulation in mousepox is apparently a relatively simple procedure for a geneticist and the methods were published in the Journal of Virology 10 years ago. Probably the only thing that has kept someone from releasing a deadly, contagious pathogen like smallpox is the fear of catching it or killing their own family, friends, countrymen, etc. Also, that is why anthrax was the pathogen of choice for bioweapons - it doesn't transmit H2H, so it could be used without risking it coming back, via H2H spread, and killing your own people.

Overall, smallpox had, I believe, a CFR of 30%. The milder form (variola minor) had a CFR of <1%, but variola major, which came in two forms - confluent and hemorrhagic, had a CFR as high as 75%. It had an R0 of 5-7 (and infected persons start shedding viruses before becoming sypmtomatic), based on casual social contact.

The genetically altered mousepox had a near 100% CFR in both vaccinated mice and those who had contracted and survived normal mouse pox.

If someone created a "superpox", they would most certainly use a strain of variola major, which the Soviets produced in powdered form by the ton during the Cold War (and much of it was unaccounted for after the USSR broke up). If that kind of pathogen was released, even on a small scale, it could be the end of modern human civilization within a few years.

If the basis of research being done on genetically altered pathogens is to help further discovery of a more effective defense against it, then I would say that it is worth the risk. But, doing it out of curiosity seems to me like the crazy kid in chemistry class who likes to mix the contents of unlabeled bottles just to see what happens.

As far as containment issues, I'm not sure why the lab would have to hold on to the virus after it was created. If the lab simply destroyed the virus at the end of the experiment, the risk of accidental release would be minimal. To me, the bigger issue is bioterrorism:

The world has survived quite well since the discovery of the atomic bomb. Part of that reason is that those countries that have discovered it know to keep the recipe a secret. Despite all their desire, terrorists that would want to build and use an atomic bomb have, fortunately, not been able to do so. I would like to think that part of that reason is that instructions on exactly how to do this have not been published to the general public.

Pandemic H5N1 is even more of a doomsday weapon than an atomic bomb. If we do not want the recpie for an atomic bomb "out there", we probably don't want a recipe for Pandemic H5N1 out there. After all, an atomic bomb at least requires some difficult to obtain materials (at least as far as I am aware!), whereas an H5N1 pandemic likely might require only an infected animal and the right procedure.
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

As the Cold War has taught us, it would be a sum-zero game.

The Mutual Ensured Destruction achieved by the simultaneous release of both 'old superpowers' (US & USSR) thermonuclear bombs would have create the condition for the end of human civilization, at least as we are used to think about it.

For an engineered pathogen, the game is also a sum-zero option: no one can build a safe vaccine or drug to protect his part from the destruction of global economy and society.

Further, a massive demise of populations could spark a N-bomb response toward the suspected nation recognized (not important if really responsible) as the epicentre of the disaster.

In other words, it is really useful to release or obscure a study that will not impact in the research of a cure or improve our knowledge in avian influenza virus ecology?

We need an ethical evaluation of research, as scientists are human beings and susceptible to error as all other, even the political bias or intimate egoism.

Science is the light of civilization but sometimes (as Kurt Vonnegut has taught us) a seemingly innocent invention could harm millions (do you remember ZyklonB, 731 Unit?).

In the recent past some faults were recognized in BSL-3 labs directed by renowned scientists and thus regulatory agencies have the obligation to ensure world population against people that for some reasons were or are trying to gain popularity or visibility through expensive and sometimes dangerous tests with live animals infected with highly pathogenic germs.

(IOH)

Indeed, I would think Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) would apply to nations involving pandemic viruses in much the same way as it did to atomic bombs. The problem to me is the presence of "bad actors" not affiliated with any nation who might have nothing to lose, like the cult that unleashed the nerve gas attack on Tokyo in 1995. Their intent was to produce a doomsday scenario. In particular, there was evidence that group tried to use the Ebola virus as a weapon, but could not for some reason (I have read conflicting reports as to why those attempts failed).

My impression (and it could be a false impression from reading the released non-technical reports) is that the prodcedure involved in increasing the transmission of H5N1 is not going to be that complicated, and might indeed be possible for lone individuals to perform without the support of any nation.
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

Well. At this point it is perhaps worth to cite the case of the rogue trade of irradiated material from Tchernobyl NPP: individuals at desperate need are going on the abandoned villages daily to seek wood, metal and every kind of reusable thing to exchange for few rubles in certain factories that transform the material collected into bicycle parts then sold elsewhere...

I remain sure that science is one of our best hope but ethics and humanity are at the same time the most important line between arbitrary impulses of individuals and communities' interest in survival.
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

The pursuit of scientific inquiry is neither inherently good nor bad. It is only when scientific findings are used for nefarious purposes that moral and ethical issues arise. Unfortunately, one person's nefariousness is another person's revolution. The world as whole no longer has a shared vision of brotherly respect and tolerance.
 
Re: Man Made H5N1 - Super Version

From website Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands:

FAQ Birdflu

How big is the risk that the virus will spread among humans?
The researchers concluded that this happens more easily than previously thought. All previous pandemic viruses were caused by genetic mixing of human and animal viruses (recombination). They presumed that this would now also be necessary. But this is not the case; a mere handful of mutations can change a H5 N1 bird flu virus into an aerosol-transmitted virus that can spread via the respiratory tract of mammals. All of the mutations found also appear individually in nature. There is no reason to assume that an aerosol-transmitted bird flu virus could not occur naturally.

Why does Erasmus MC carry out this type of research?
Erasmus MC carries out research to improve public health which is precisely why it is essential to conduct research on these viruses. A pandemic could cost many lives. Only by conducting these studies can we determine the risks caused by viruses and devise strategies to mitigate the risks, for example, by developing vaccines and medication to curtail the spread of the virus and by developing diagnostic tests. If these studies are not carried out as a precaution but once the virus has started to spread, it is too late. Research and the development of tests, vaccines and medication are very time consuming. The outcomes of this study will also be benficial in earlier recognition of dangerous variants of the virus in outbreaks.

Can researchers become infected with the virus and then spread it?
The laboratory staff members have been well-trained and take all the required precautions to work safely in the research areas. The staff members have been vaccinated. In the interest of everybody?s safety, no unauthorized persons are admitted to this area and all work is carried out under the supervision of a Biological Safety Officer. In the unlikely event of an incident, antivirals are available to treat staff members. Erasmus MC also has the facilities to accommodate people in an isolation room after possible infection.

Would it not be better to stop this type of research?
A possible pandemic could cost millions of lives. If this type of research is carried out under maximum safety conditions, as described above, the benefits of the research are greater than the risks.

Could this dangerous virus escape from a laboratory or fall into the hands of people intending to cause harm, such as bioterrorists?
The research will be carried out in a special laboratory with additional safety precautions for working with these viruses. The circumstances are such that they provide maximum safety for both humans and the environment. This area is also called the BSL3-plus laboratory (where BSL stands for biosafety level). The air pressure in this area is, for example, lower than that of the surroundings so that the air will always be drawn towards the ?inside? and the air is cleaned by virus filters.

Only well-trained and vaccinated researchers can enter the laboratory through a lock chamber, with special clothing. The work is carried out in hermetically sealed biological safety work bench isolators from which contaminated air cannot escape. Materials will always remain in the laboratory. All waste is sterilized before being disposed.
The research group carried out the study under conditions that ensure the safety of both humans and the environment. The group has been given a general exemption to work with bird flu viruses and it has an environmental permit from the Ministry for Infrastructure and the Environment (I&M). I&M was given advice by COGEM that provides the government with independent scientific advice on genetic modification.

The research was also commissioned by the American National Institutes of Health (NIH) and therefore also assessed by experts in an international context. Because of the American funding, the researchers not only have to comply with Dutch law and regulations but also with American law and regulations. The facilities and researchers are inspected every three years by inspectors of the ?Centers of Disease Control?(CDC) in Atlanta. A positive recommendation with regard to the safety was once more given by the inspectors during the last inspection in February 2011.

The facilities have a high level of security and the virus is stored in an area not accessible by outsiders. It is also not easy to copy the virus as specialist knowledge and equipment is necessary.



ErasmusMC
 
Back
Top