Scientists Create Deadlier TB Strain By Accident

Makarand writes "BBC News is reporting that Scientists at the University of California (Berkeley, U.S.) accidentally created a hyper-virulent form of the Tuberculosis bacterium while trying to alter its genetic structure to make it less deadly. The mutant form of the super-bug could multiply more quickly and also had the unexpected effect of undermining the body's own immune response against Tuberculosis."

Comments

Re:Things that make you go

[squiggleslash]

It's all down to marketing at the end of the day. Who's going to buy a vial of TB marked "Slightly worse than normal TB"? Nobody. You need to make your product stand out.

One of very few hyper-virulent organisms ever crea

[leoaugust]

A virulent form of tuberculosis was created in the laboratory by experts trying to alter its genetic structure. The mutant form of the bug multiplied more quickly, and was more lethal than its natural counterpart. "This is one of the very few hyper-virulent organisms ever created," said scientist Dr Lisa Morici.

I could just picture the glee with which Dr. Lisa Morici must have said that. It reminds me of the smile on the son's face when his dad came to visit him in his lab.

From

The father was very proud when his son went off to college. He came to tour the school on Parents' Day and observed his son hard at work in the chemistry lab.

"What are you working on?" he asked.

"A universal solvent," explained the son, " a solvent that'll dissolve anything."

The father whistled, clearly impressed, then wondered aloud, "What'll you keep it in?"

Hmmmm

[Hanji]

I'm reading Stephen King's The Stand at the moment. 'nuff said.

Underlines the problems with genetic manipulation.

[pwagland]

First up, don't get me wrong. Genetic research is incredibly useful, and as a tool in the modern medical warchest has paid great dividends. However, from the article "The emergence of these strains should pose no risk to humans, [Dr Morici] said." He goes on to say that these strains probably already exist, or have existed in the wild, but, for whatever reason, they are not viable.

Now imagine, for sake of argument, that we create a similar problem with wheat or rice, common non-human subjects of genetic manipulation. Further, assume that we don't catch it in the lab. It might not kill us directly, but by wiping out our "natural"* crops it may well starve us to death... * "natural" since farmers have been selectively breeding grains and livestock for many centuries, it is just that recently we have improved on the technique.

Why were they trying in the first place?

[Tango42]

What is the point of trying to make less deadly versions of TB? Are they trying to make a version that will stimulate the production of the same antibodies, but not harm someone, so they can make a live vacine? The article doesn't seem to worry about details like that, i guess the interesting bit is them making a harmless mistake, rather than the useful work they are trying to do...

Re:Underlines the problems with genetic manipulati

[jamesh]

That would be okay though. Industry would step in with a resistant strain of rice which they'd be happy to sell. Unfortunately it's seeds, while tasty, would be sterile, so you'd need to buy from them each time you wanted to plant a crop.

Risk Assessment

[Wardish]

Actually I'm surprised that there was any report in the news at all. Some enterprising reporter must have been keeping a close eye on minor publications or some such.

In the scheme of things and to put it into perspective.

People are going to be doing this sort of work either out in the open or as underground projects. The fact is that we've the best chance to have the skills and technology to deal with the possible accidental and/or bioterror release if we encourage as much work in this area as we can.

If we clamped down on it then only a small elite group will have access to the knowledge and tools and they will be of lower quality than in a more open scenario.

Yes I have considered that the "bad" guys will also have the advantage of better tools. Additionally there will be an increased risk of accidental release due to much more research being done. But I think the advantages of having many more people available and speeding up our advances far outweigh the added risk.

Mmmmm thorazine....

The question is: misspelt

[jamesh]

They will pile it up with their other virii. They now have enough virii to wipe out at least the following creatureii:
. humanii
. sheepii
. cowii
. catii
. pigii
. giraffii
. dogii

Top ten list (abbreviated)

[Alsee]

.
.
.
5) NASA telemetry station, tracking YetAnotherMarsProbe.
4) Your barber, giving you a hair cut.
3) Your daughter, checking a pregnancy test.
2) A munitions expert, loading nuclear weapons for transport.
1) A genetic engineer, experimenting on human pathogens.

Top 10 people you don't want to hear say "Oops".

-

Re:Kinda frightening

[Demolition]

That is a pretty frightening bit 'o news there

Yes, it is frightening. And, I'm not just agreeing with you because of what could occur in the future if a variant strain of TB was accidentally (or even purposely) released into the general population, but because I've already personally experienced the suffering that it can cause. TB has hit my family particularly hard -- three of my aunts succumbed to it during internment in World War II.

So, when I hear about researchers fooling about with virulent diseases (diseases which should have been eradicated long ago!) for seemingly superficial or spurious reasons, then I always get an uneasy feeling. Especially when they say that these hyper-virulent strains should, as Dr. Stoker says in the article, "pose no danger to humans". I hope that those aren't the proverbial famous last words.

D.

Quick!

[metamatic]

Someone call Rumsfeld, I know his friend Saddam is in jail but he might know another murderous dictator we can sell the stuff to.