DescentBB

They made a new strain of bird flu that will actually be lethal to humans (and just as contagious as normal flu.)

A deadly strain of bird flu with the potential to infect and kill millions of people has been created in a laboratory by European scientists – who now want to publish full details of how they did it.

The discovery has prompted fears within the US Government that the knowledge will fall into the hands of terrorists wanting to use it as a bio-weapon of mass destruction.

Some scientists are questioning whether the research should ever have been undertaken in a university laboratory, instead of at a military facility.

The US Government is now taking advice on whether the information is too dangerous to be published.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 79474.html

http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/ ... 78778.html

This research was done in the 'hopes' of creating better vaccines in the future. So if and when this killer virus escapes the lab or is somehow replicated by nefarious government(s), we'll know who to blame I suppose.

Hopes of creating a better vaccine....suuuuuuuuuuure. Sounds like the same reason they've kept the Smallpox virus around in some lab somewhere. All for just research.

One man's altruistic idea can always be used as someone else's evil deed. Wasn't this the plot around Star Trek 3, The Search for Spock? Starfleet claimed that the Genesis Project was only going to be used for good, while the Klingons figured out it could be used as a weapon of mass destruction.

The thing is, the idea behind the research is a sound one: understanding how easily this virus can mutate to a human-transmissible form makes it much easier to spot if it does so in the while, and also aids in the development of potential future vaccines. However, I don't think it's the sort of research that should have been undertaken in a low-security location like a university, given the potential disaster that might occur if the exact data or samples fell into the wrong hands.

Your assumption, Top Gun, is that the bird flu could ever be this dangerous on its own. I call bull****.

Just a though: does it really matter what the intentions of the scientists are/were? They're not the ones bankrolling it.

Top Gun wrote:The thing is, the idea behind the research is a sound one: understanding how easily this virus can mutate to a human-transmissible form makes it much easier to spot if it does so in the while, and also aids in the development of potential future vaccines. However, I don't think it's the sort of research that should have been undertaken in a low-security location like a university, given the potential disaster that might occur if the exact data or samples fell into the wrong hands.

Somebody else apparently thought about the same thing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world- ... a-16279365

Wouldn't it have just made more sense to eradicate smallpox when you have the chance?

It's all because of Monkeypox (I'm not kidding), or just plain curiosity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/la ... 69116.html

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Your assumption, Top Gun, is that the bird flu could ever be this dangerous on its own. I call bull****.

If they can create it without too much trouble, then someone else could independently create it too. This sort of thing should definitely have been done at a government lab though.

Jeff250 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Your assumption, Top Gun, is that the bird flu could ever be this dangerous on its own. I call bull****.

If they can create it without too much trouble, then someone else could independently create it too.

And it could just as easily happen on its own. Flu strains are notoriously mutation-prone (thus why a new seasonal vaccine has to be cooked up every year), and if the difference between the current wild strain and a human-contagious one is as small as these researchers found, then it's something that could feasibly occur naturally.

I don't think the question is if they could but if they should. Most if not all of diseases are the results of unsanitary practices....etc.
Not to even mention outright manipulation.

Top Gun wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Your assumption, Top Gun, is that the bird flu could ever be this dangerous on its own. I call bull****.

If they can create it without too much trouble, then someone else could independently create it too.

And it could just as easily happen on its own. Flu strains are notoriously mutation-prone (thus why a new seasonal vaccine has to be cooked up every year), and if the difference between the current wild strain and a human-contagious one is as small as these researchers found, then it's something that could feasibly occur naturally.

Both arguments are wanting, in my opinion. That's par for the course, though, isn't it. If it seems to make sense and its popular then it's good enough for you.

You can justify anything in the name of science…even immoral acts…like creating dangerous life forms.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Both arguments are wanting, in my opinion. That's par for the course, though, isn't it. If it seems to make sense and its popular then it's good enough for you.

Out of random curiosity, what knowledge of virology informs that opinion?

I'm just good at spotting assumptions and BS superficial answers, that's all.

Top Gun wrote:And it could just as easily happen on its own. Assumption Flu strains are notoriously mutation-prone (thus why a new seasonal vaccine has to be cooked up every year) Does not really support your assertion that what these guys have done could have happened anyway, and if so why go to the expense and trouble, and how could they know it would mutate in this particular direction?, and if the difference between the current wild strain and a human-contagious one is as small as these researchers found, then it's something that could feasibly occur naturally. Assumption based on an overly-simplistic picture of the subject matter

This thing was genetically altered/engineered to enable it to effect another species. That's directed. Not even close to natural mutation by definition alone! As far as I'm concerned their explanations are crafted to save their ass at best. No one is ever willingly going to admit that this was a bad idea. It was a very bad idea.

You're good at not knowing your way around a biology textbook, that's for sure.

It's not an "assumption" to say that this avian flu strain could mutate into a human-transmissible virus, because we've seen the exact same thing happen with other flu strains. Remember swine flu? The "swine" designation is there for a reason: that particular strain bounced around between birds and pigs and humans over the past century. The influenza virus can undergo a process called "reassortment," where genetic snippets from multiple strains can be combined in an organism, and such a process eventually led to the swine flu becoming human-transmissible. The difference here is that the H1N1 strain wasn't much worse than a normal flu for the vast majority of people, while avian flu has recorded something like a 60% fatality rate among humans that have contracted it from close animal contact.

The reason these researchers took on this particular task was because they knew that other virus strains have mutated in the exact same fashion in nature; they wanted to see just how far away the H5N1 avian strain was from becoming easily human-transmissible. The fact that it apparently took only a handful of changes in a few genes to make this strain human-infectious, the same sorts of simple changes that could occur and have occurred in nature, shows that the concerns over this particular strain are well-founded. The fortunate thing is that understanding what mutations would have to occur to the virus in nature makes it easier to determine if such mutations have occurred, and to enable the quicker production of a vaccine if one becomes available.

Do I think that the venues chosen for this research were inappropriate at best and dangerous at worst? Yes. But I'm not going to sit here and criticize them for doing it, because it's legitimate science that serves a legitimate purpose.

Good post. I would concede the point, but I might lose my conspiracy-theorist membership status. I will say that I would not put it past some of the powers-that-be to initiate a pandemic, and then simply say that the very same research that actually gave them the virus was our savior and completely justified. I don't try to be paranoid, but with all of these upper-class and political types so interested in population control and reduction I think I'm justifiably apprehensive when something like this comes up.

Do I think that the venues chosen for this research were inappropriate at best and dangerous at worst? Yes. But I'm not going to sit here and criticize them for doing it, because it's legitimate science that serves a legitimate purpose.

Agreed.

We should title the research "One Flu Over the Cuckoo's Nest".

woodchip wrote:We should title the research "One Flu Over the Cuckoo's Nest".

Ouch! Thats worse than the virus!