11 Pathogens Pose Big Security Risk For Research

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

11 Pathogens Pose Big Security Risk For Research

Posted by timothy on Thursday June 16, 2011 @06:07AM from the in-the-glovebox-please dept.

sciencehabit writes "A United States federal panel of scientists and security experts has identified 11 microorganisms that it wants designated as Tier 1 select agents, a new category of biological agents that would be subject to higher security standards than other pathogens and toxins used in biomedical research. The category would include anthrax, Ebola, Variola major and Variola minor (the two viruses that cause small pox), the Marburg virus, the virus that causes foot and mouth disease, and bacterial strains that produce the botulinum neurotoxin. At the same time, the panel has recommended dropping 19 pathogens and six toxins from the broader list of 82 agents that are currently governed by the select agent program."

115 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

wow... by Nrrqshrr · 2011-06-16 06:12 · Score: 0

"the virus that causes foot and mouth disease"
Haven't seen a better scientific nomenclature before.
1. Re:wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 06:14 · Score: 0
  
  I could have sworn it was not a virus but a prion, an infectious protein.
2. Re:wow... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-06-16 06:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  No, it is a viral infection. The virus responsible is called the picornavirus.
3. Re:wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  It's a picornavirus of the genus Aphthovirus. And the report calls it the foot-and-mouth disease virus.
4. Re:wow... by Mindcontrolled · 2011-06-16 06:23 · Score: 2
  
  To add some info to the parent, prions are responsible for BSE in cattle, Scrapie in sheep, chronic wasting disease in deer, CJD and Kuru in man, and couple of inherited, rather uncommon diseases in men, too - like fatal familar insomnia and weird stuff like that. Foot and Mouth is indeed viral, not prionic.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
5. Re:wow... by datapharmer · 2011-06-16 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  You're thinking of mad cow disease which is from prions.
  
  --
  Get a web developer
6. Re:wow... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  What they really need to do is isolate, contain, and find a cure for the virus that causes foot *in* mouth disease... ;)
7. Re:wow... by SleazyRidr · 2011-06-16 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  We may have seen nomenclature before, but would you know what picornavirus meant? So if they did include the nomenclature it'd have to be something like "picornavirus (the vrus that causes foot and mouth disease". So They're basically just saving a few letters.
  p.s. I'm assuming that the other posters calling it picornavirus are right, I don't know myself, and I don't really care enough to click that handy Wikipedia link Linux Nutcase provided.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
8. Re:wow... by Narcocide · 2011-06-16 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  You're confusing "Hoof & Mouth" disease with "Mad Cow" disease. "Mad Cow" is the one caused by non-viral, non-living, but 100% organic microscopic shards of brain-seeking protein.
9. Re:wow... by mlush · 2011-06-16 22:17 · Score: 1
  
  If Foot and Mouth was prionic it would not be such a problem just stop feeding the animals brains and your sorted
10. Re:wow... by RockDoctor · 2011-06-17 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  If Foot and Mouth was prionic it would not be such a problem just stop feeding the animals brains and your sorted
  You're implying that you think that prions are associated with "brains" (were you making a zombie joke too? It's not at all clear.) or central nervous system tissue.
  The kuru/ scrapie/ CWD/ nvCJD/ BSE prion seems to be a characteristic of a protein that is strongly concentrated in CNS tissue. However as I understand the concept, there is precisely nothing to prevent the prion "effect" occuring in, for example, actin or myosin (the main contractile proteins of eucaryote cells).
  I'd like to be proven wrong that a transmissible prion could be produced that affects muscle tissue, and is transmitted by muscle tissue. But now that I formulate the idea, it seems much more plausible that it'll be proved possible by someone making one. The weapons potential is interesting.
  I can see the movie : "Dr Stainglove : or how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hamburger."
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
11. Re:wow... by mlush · 2011-06-19 21:36 · Score: 1
  If Foot and Mouth was prionic it would not be such a problem just stop feeding the animals brains and your sorted
  You're implying that you think that prions are associated with "brains" (were you making a zombie joke too? It's not at all clear.) or central nervous system tissue.
  Both:-) the whole Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (aka Mad Cow disease) was kicked off by adding the rendered remains of sick and injured animals to cattle feed. In retrospect this was a bad idea.
  
  The kuru/ scrapie/ CWD/ nvCJD/ BSE prion seems to be a characteristic of a protein that is strongly concentrated in CNS tissue. However as I understand the concept, there is precisely nothing to prevent the prion "effect" occuring in, for example, actin or myosin (the main contractile proteins of eucaryote cells).
  I'd like to be proven wrong that a transmissible prion could be produced that affects muscle tissue, and is transmitted by muscle tissue. But now that I formulate the idea, it seems much more plausible that it'll be proved possible by someone making one. The weapons potential is interesting.
  Its possible but unlikely for this to happen, the prion protein (PRNP) can exist in two stable configurations normal and 'misfolded'. During protein biosynthesis there is cellular machinery that ensures that a newly made protein folds correctly and normally once made PRNP will hold its shape. However is a normal PRNP encounters a misfolded PRNP the latter can act as a template converting the normal to misfolded. Whats worse is that the misfolded version forms stable aggregates within the cell and builds up causing CJD.
  This leads to the linked questions how does this start up and why is it unlikely to happen with other proteins?
  The exact answer to the first question is not know, but it is suffice to say that, nothing is perfect and very very very rarely a cell will produce a misfolded PRNP (the affected individual having a mutation predisposing it helps).
  Question 2 is down to evolution, to a first approximation any protein that has a tendency to be unstable and convert to a form that kills the organism is going to be very strongly selected against. If there was an actin variant that had a tendency to flip out and lead the other actins molecules in a assault on the cell, that variant it is long dead and out-competed by organisms with more predictable proteins. (This not to say its impossible if the instability confered an advantage (like Sickle-cell anemia) or the effects are mild or the issue it was very rare it could survive.)
  Now could you make a new one? I'll have to say no. You have to remember that your target repertoire is fixed you have about 20000 genes producing perhaps 100,000 proteins. Each of theses proteins has a only few stable configurations and have evolved to naturally fall into the correct shape. so now your looking for one that
  
  has a secondary stable disease conformation,
  
  the disease form needs to be very resistant to the normal protein degradation processes inside and outside the cell (so it can build up)
  
  needs to be auto-catalytic ie able to convert normal protein to misfolded (so it can spread)
  
  has not already done so and therefore appeared in the medical literature
  
  As for its weapons potential even under the best circumstances its not going to be very fast CJD takes years to develop, a hypothetical actin prion would be really nasty and could kill quite quickly (say days to months) but I'd only expect to see something like that in moderatly hard SciFi.
12. Re:wow... by RockDoctor · 2011-06-20 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  OK. A considered response, which deserves a considered response.
  We're not fundamentally in disagreement. But on a point by point basis:
  
  Both:-) the whole Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (aka Mad Cow disease) was kicked off by adding the rendered remains of sick and injured animals to cattle feed. In retrospect this was a bad idea.
  In the late '70s and early '80s, when I "were nobbut a young loon", and before I'd solidified my personal choices about my morals, I was a sincere member of the animal rights movement. I'm still (not) in (dis-)agreement with (most of) the movement's moral position (NB : this does not mean that I'm in agreement with all other members ; I learned a lot in jail cells and thought hard about it. I was, in my youth, an ignorant youth ; now I'm much older, more experienced but only arguably wiser.) But back in the day, say "1983", we were saying prospectively that this (feeding bits of sheep to sheep ; bits of cow to cows) is a bad idea. At that time I couldn't put a solid scientific footing to my (our) disquiet, but deep concern was certainly being expressed.
  It wasn't nice to be proved right.
  Well, not very nice. Being proved correct is always nice, to a degree.
  (EDIT : what was said over spliffs and coffee shop tables is NOT necessarily what was said to reporters by "spokespeople", or what the reporters reported. I shouldn't need to say that, but I'll say it nonetheless. Otherwise I'm silly-ly open to being quoted out of context.)
  Being a member of "the lunatic fringe" does not mean that you're necessarily in the wrong.
  
  Its possible but unlikely for this to happen,[SNIP description of the "prion process"]
  This leads to the linked questions how does this start up and why is it unlikely to happen with other proteins?
  I did use the term "weaponise" ; that means to use forethought and planning to design such a system. Evolutionary issues are real, but irrelevant ; I'm not talking about a system evolving naturally, but being developed by people with a solid understanding of protein design and the co-opting of cellular protein synthetic pathways.
  You want people like that? Advertise where a drug company has shut a research lab.
  
  Now could you make a new one? I'll have to say no.
  Strong statement. With all due respect, I do not accept your assertion as an adequate "argument from authority".
  
  Each of theses proteins has a only few stable configurations and have evolved to naturally fall into the correct shape.
  As stated above, I'm not talking about a natural selection process. You're addressing a question you'd like to address, not the question I am considering.
  
  As for its weapons potential even under the best circumstances its not going to be very fast
  What is the purpose of the weapon you're considering? Now that I'm prompted, I'd say that I'm considering a weapon which is designed to reduce human consumption of flesh by (say) 75%, over a decade, and then keep the consumption down for the foreseeable future (say, a millennium). Net directly-attributable deaths from the weapon "APARP" (safety engineering acronym : "As Low As Reasonably Practicable". Which begs questions of what is considered "reasonable". I'd consider anything better expressed in units less than a gigadeath (10^9 deaths) would probably be worth looking at more closely. Get the deaths (for a 1*Earth susceptible population) down into the mere megadeaths and you're talking about an "advertising campaign", not "microbiological warfare".
  
  I'd only expect to see something like that in moderatly hard SciFi.
  I THINK I'd like to see it stay there too.
  But, if I can conceive of it, then the professional threat-managing people should certainly have th
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Botox? by chrylis · 2011-06-16 06:14 · Score: 1

It'll be amusing to see what happens if these proponents manage to get Botox admitted to the select club along with Ebola and smallpox...
1. Re:Botox? by black+soap · 2011-06-16 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  They put marijuana in the same drug category as heroin, GHB, MDMA, and LSD (schedule I).
  They put opium, cocaine, ritalin, and morphine into the same category (schedule II).
  The rules are not made by the experts, they are made by Congress.
2. Re:Botox? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 11:17 · Score: 0
  
  The funny thing is, there is not a single known fatality from LSD and MDMA is "safer than riding a horse". - even relative to amounts of users for each substance alcohol is more dangerous than heroin(controlled dosage)
3. Re:Botox? by Narcocide · 2011-06-16 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  No the *real* amusing part is just how much more lethal Caffeine is by volume than any of that "controlled substance" shit.
4. Re:Botox? by KDR_11k · 2011-06-16 18:10 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair botox is the most toxic substance currently known. The lethal dose is 1 nanogram per kilogram of body weight. Doesn't take much of that stuff to kill millions of people.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
5. Re:Botox? by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 22:48 · Score: 1
  
  The funny thing is, there is not a single known fatality from LSD and MDMA is "safer than riding a horse". - even relative to amounts of users for each substance alcohol is more dangerous than heroin(controlled dosage)
  There are other side effects than fatality to drugs, you know.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Worryingly by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2011-06-16 06:15 · Score: 1

I don't see the zombie virus in there...
1. Re:Worryingly by WrongSizeGlass · 2011-06-16 06:30 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  I don't see the zombie virus in there...
  That's because the zombie virus causes zombies to eat brains. Politicians don't have brains so they aren't worried about it.
2. Re:Worryingly by Neil+Boekend · 2011-06-16 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  And they are protected from Zombie Jesus as well, as they have no souls.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by camperslo · 2011-06-16 06:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

When the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnapped Patty Hearst in Berkeley and demanded the distribution of food to the poor, Reagan joked, "It's just too bad we can't have an epidemic of botulism."
Let's hope that governments and others don't do much with those nasties.
Reagan quote is from The Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, California). March 14, 1974
1. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  When the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnaps someone, what else is there to say? So like, um....did they ever get hit with an epidemic of botulism? A follow up to that story would have been nice.
2. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by metlin · 2011-06-16 06:45 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  When one studies Reagan's policies (stated versus actual) and his pitiable excuse for economics, one realizes just how horrible a president he was, and how a good chunk of the problems we see today can be traced back to his administration. I suppose that's what you get for electing an actor as a president.
  This is the man who waned to eliminate the Department of Education and implemented standardized tests as a way of measuring "intelligence", which has screwed up the American educational system to this day.
  And this was the man who kept quiet about the AIDS epidemic for the longest time, as if being silent would make it go away.
  Should one of those nasties broken out when he'd been in power, he'd have just pulled an ostrich and pretended that nothing happened.
3. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  What about the rest of the story behind what shit the SLA really was? You fuck
4. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by HBI · 2011-06-16 07:02 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Explain why life was so good in Reagan's America, then.
  Your argument only makes sense in a left-wing context. Anyone who actually had to live and grow up in those times knows the sharp differential between Jimmy Carter and Reagan.
  
  --
  HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
5. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 07:08 · Score: 0
  
  You know, we really don't fucking care about your stupid political rant.
6. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 07:13 · Score: 0
  
  Umm... it wasn't. You're suffering from a vision of the past that never was.
7. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  That's easy enough, it wasn't. Unless you were wealthy, white, and male.
8. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  You are partially correct. Any party that comes into power usually does good things to start with. They act mainly on the higher elements of their nature. But after they've been in office for a while they start doing bad things because of ideology or corruption or cronyism.
  So around 1980 the left wing had been in power for over thirty years and they were long past the stage of doing good things. They had let their left wing ideology, corruption, and cronyism destroy the country's economy. People were tired of it and they elected the right wing.
  At first the right wing did good things, acting mainly on the higher elements of their nature. They easily saw where left wing ideology had led to poor decisions, and the left wing cronies were removed. Now it's thirty years later and the situation is exactly reversed.
9. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by mangu · 2011-06-16 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not American, but this fact I know: Carter was only the second incumbent to lose the election in American history, while Reagan was reelected easily in 1984. At least voters preferred Reagan over Carter.
10. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 07:33 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Explain why life was so good in Reagan's America, then.
  Because he traded short term economic gain for long term economic stability. Reagan is the president who began dismantling Depression-era regulations on the banking and finance industries. That resulted in a short term boost. This trend continued (and thus the blame doesn't fall squarely on Reagan's shoulders) and resulted in the S&L Crisis, the .com Bubble, the real estate bubble, and the resulting Great Recession.
  Reagan's policies may have been good for you living during those times, but they've been a fucking disaster for those of us who had to graduate college and work through the past decade.
11. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by wintercolby · 2011-06-16 07:44 · Score: 2
  
  I grew up when Reagan was president, and I have to say that it was close to abject poverty. Both of my parents worked, but neither seemed to make any headway. As the second oldest of the children, I didn't know what new clothes were until I was 16 years old and got an after school and weekend job. The only good thing I can say about growing up like that is that people who grow up soft don't know how to survive tough times. I went to a different school every year, we just kept moving to poorer and poorer areas. Perhaps my experience was colored by all of the poverty that I saw, growing up, but I have to say that the Reagan years were the worst part of America in my memory.
  
  From my perspective, life was horrible in "Reagan's America", so leave your right wing rhetoric at home, or explain how life was soooo stinking good under Reagan.
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
12. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by toriver · 2011-06-16 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically, thirty-odd years later botulism toxin is intentionally sprayed into countless Hollywood actors and actresses... what, you didn't know what "Botox" consisted of?
13. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 08:00 · Score: 0
  
  Whoosh....
  What made Reagan's "joke" so twisted was that the poor, not the SLA, were the ones the food was requested for. Suggesting a pathogen, even jokingly, matches or surpasses some insensitive comments others have worked to bury ("go play in the street", "poor people don't need to drive" etc.)
  As far as I know, the only pathogens he released on the poor were illegal drugs sold to fund black ops activity, and he was supportive of spraying paraquat on marijuana.
  Reagan wasn't one for social programs. As governor of California he gave the state a large boost to the homeless population by putting many from the state's mental hospitals on the streets.
  Quite a few of them were Vietnam veterans.
14. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by fnj · 2011-06-16 08:19 · Score: 2
  
  Your left wing slant is no better than right wing slant. I'll see your anecdote with my own. The Reagan years were by far the best of my life. The atmosphere was fresh and filled with hope, and the economy was suited and rewarding to entrepreneurship, and I was an (extremely petty) entrepreneur. OK, I was a one man contractor. The Reagan years followed the abject tumble into misery that was the Carter years, and preceded the long, burned-out, no-prospects, exhausted period that was the Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, and is the Obama years. You can't deny the facts of my life, just like I can't deny those of yours. And you know what we both are? INDIVIDUAL cases. Big deal.
15. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Cutting the upper tax rate from 70 to 55 to 28% brought in some huge campaign contributors as did his crippling nearly every regulatory agency.
  If none of the environmental issues matter to you, think of your television. Thank Ronald Reagan for 18 - 20 minutes an hour of ads on U.S. commercial tv, infomercials, and allowing ads from drug companies and lawyers.
16. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 08:48 · Score: 0
  
  That's fine and dandy, but it is the toxin that is useful when used selectively. They're not injecting bacteria.
  There are poisons used in some medications. The story is about dangerous things used in research. Clearly some things do have some positive uses, but it is an area where great caution is appropriate. Those who favor deregulation of everything might have a hard time defending industry (or anyone) working with such potentially dangerous things without mandatory safety controls.
  Let's hope we learn from the EU and others and ensure that the EPA and FDA have the mandate and resources to protect out environment and health even when it isn't "convenient" for industry.
17. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-06-16 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because now that we're in "Obama's America" there are no poor people, right? Rank idiocy. Your problem is you think government can solve everyone's problems. They can't - some people will just always be dirt poor and that's reality.
18. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by wintercolby · 2011-06-16 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  After 8 years of policy that seemed designed to crush the middle class, one can't expect it to be fixed within 2 years. It's that simple, there's nothing that's immediate. Tea Party ideas to shrink the payroll of the nations largest employer are a monumentally bad idea for the economy.
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
19. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-06-16 12:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's my point. You overestimate government's role in the economy. I don't expect Obama to have fixed everything, nor do I blame previous administrations for our condition. Greed drives the machine, and it ended up costing people. This is normal and expected. The correct response is to live through it, learn from it, and move on.
  I really wonder what the big government assholes will say in 20 years when we're in a whole shitload of trouble and we're going the way of Greece (and the rest of the EU, before long)? Fortunately for you that's a long term cost, short term you can bloviate about how we have to keep the pyramid scheme that is the US government growing and growing.
20. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 13:43 · Score: 0
  
  " At least voters preferred Reagan over Carter."
  What you really mean is, there were more idiots than smart people, at the polls.
  Reagan was a piece of shit.
  I have pissed on his grave. And I will do so again.
21. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not American, but this fact I know: Carter was only the second incumbent to lose the election in American history, while Reagan was reelected easily in 1984. At least voters preferred Reagan over Carter.
  So? The Germans voted in fucking Hitler in the 1930s. Democracy isn't foolproof.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
22. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  So around 1980 the left wing had been in power for over thirty years
  So Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford were left wing? You'd have to be really, really, really right wing to believe that.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
23. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  Your left wing slant is no better than right wing slant. I'll see your anecdote with my own. The Reagan years were by far the best of my life.
  Obviously, the Reagan years were great if you were a rich, white, male right winger, no-one's arguing with that.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
24. Re:Ronald Reagan - "Facts are stupid things" by wintercolby · 2011-06-16 23:51 · Score: 1
  
  Its funny that you mention Greece, as it's the austerity measures imposed by the EU and IMF that are now causing instability, riots and poor economic conditions. Meanwhile, it's our "Big Government" that builds maintains infrastructure. If the government needs to shrink, the only sensible way to do it without wrecking the economy is attrition. The largest problem with cutting "entitlements" is that a lot of people feel entitled to them. Everyone who pays payroll income tax pays for Social Security and Medicare. We see line items for those, separate from Federal Income Tax, on our pay stubs. Social Security is the reverse of a progressive tax, the more you make, the less you pay into them. There are loopholes, entitlement taxes are payroll taxes. It's only in 2013 that medicare tax will start being applied investment income.
  
  The George W. Bush 15% capital gains tax were implemented in 2003, and how has the economy and stock market been since then? Aren't stock values being propped up by the 401k's and IRA's? The markets crashed, they lost a lot of perceived value, and where did that perceived value go? The 15% capital gains tax encourages short term thinking, people can take profit straight from the market and pay the same tax rate as low income earners. Doesn't it make sense that the 28% capital gains rate from the Clinton years encouraged people to put their investments in "tax shelters"? IRA's and 401k's are much longer term planning, and if you don't pay capital gains tax on them when you hit retirement, then they work exactly how they were designed. It's the 15% capital gains tax that encourages short term thinking, short term profit taking, and it's what is enabling the wealthy in this country to completely fleece the middle class. We put our money in 401k's, planning for retirement, and it's those who work on Wall Street and play the market that are taking profits and paying little to do so. It's not that I see capital gains tax as a revenue source, its that I see it as a deterrent to reaming out our private market retirement investment plans.
  
  --
  Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley
Missing a poison there by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 06:22 · Score: 0

How come the product that is the most hazardous to health isn't on the list: crude milk ?
1. Re:Missing a poison there by nedlohs · 2011-06-16 06:27 · Score: 2
  
  Because, in contrast to yourself, the list creators aren't complete morons.
2. Re:Missing a poison there by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  Gotta love comments as these, nice shot. :p
3. Re:Missing a poison there by History's+Coming+To · 2011-06-16 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  I drank unpasteurised milk until I was 12, it's fine. Yeah, it needs to be fresh, but raw milk is no problem in itself,
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
4. Re:Missing a poison there by black+soap · 2011-06-16 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  That's right. crude milk is on a separate list.
5. Re:Missing a poison there by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  So you mother began pasteurizing her milk when you were 12?
6. Re:Missing a poison there by mangu · 2011-06-16 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  So you mother began pasteurizing her milk when you were 12?
  Boiling her tits... ouch!
7. Re:Missing a poison there by Mindcontrolled · 2011-06-16 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  Personally, I don't give a rat's arse about milk as such, but you can pry my raw milk cheese from my cold, dead hands.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
8. Re:Missing a poison there by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  You'll stop enjoying them as much once you're no longer a 12 years old thinking the playground is the center of the world. You'll understand once you reach adulthood.
Small problem... by girlintraining · 2011-06-16 06:34 · Score: 2

and bacterial strains that produce the botulinum neurotoxin.
That bacteria can be found in most people's attics, inside canned food that's gone bad, and a whole lot of other places. Oh, and in cosmetic shops (botox anyone?). Good luck with that, Uncle Sam. It's like trying to regulate ricin; It's too easy to find and synthesize.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
1. Re:Small problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 06:49 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It is the spore formers they are worried about. Botox or bad canned goods might kill someone or even a few people, but botox is for morons and canned food is tested in the U.S. so you are safe if you don't eat spoiled/past date canned goods. But when the bacteria starts to form spores is when it becomes dangerous as it can be weaponized and spread as an aerosol. Entire cities of people being infected is the real concern here, not a few individual cases. And trust me, they have response plans in place to deal with this exact scenario. The rules are already pretty strict about how this stuff is dealt with. They just want to make it even safer. Good for them. That stuff is really scary.
2. Re:Small problem... by circletimessquare · 2011-06-16 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  you forgot anthrax: just as prevalent
  and you're displaying your ignorance when you talk about how easy it is to find and synthesize:
  go ahead and try to concentrate/ weaponize without killing yourself (ricin/ botulism toxin/ anthrax)
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
3. Re:Small problem... by black+soap · 2011-06-16 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  and oh look, they want to restrict access to bacillus anthracis, a soil-borne bacteria with spores that can be found on every continent.
4. Re:Small problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 07:03 · Score: 0
  
  Botox (Botulinum toxin) is the toxic protein produced by Clostridium botulinum bacteria, not the bacteria itself.
  https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Botulinum_toxin
5. Re:Small problem... by crunchygranola · 2011-06-16 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  It is harder than it looks - botulinum strains are ubiquitous, but effective producers of potent toxin need to be isolated to make a weapon. A random selection of any of these pathogens is unlikely to be virulent or an effective toxin producer. This is why potent virulent strains of pathogens, like the anthrax Ames strain, are fairly big deals.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
6. Re:Small problem... by the+biologist · 2011-06-16 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  It is actually very easy, if you have any bio lab experience at all. The likelyhood of killing yourself goes up dramatically if you have no idea about contamination control and biohazard personal protection equipment.
7. Re:Small problem... by circletimessquare · 2011-06-16 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  "it is actually very easy" said the anonymous RPG playing basement dweller
  the internet: where every 14 year old is a molecular biophysicist
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
8. Re:Small problem... by Mindcontrolled · 2011-06-16 07:52 · Score: 2
  
  As a trained biochemist, I'd say, yes, it is somewhat easy to get a culture going of whatever weaponizable germ you want - media are pretty standard and well published, the lab equipment will put you down a couple of grands, basic clue will keep you alive. However, actually weaponizing a strain you cultured - I have to admit that this is well beyond me (and I prefer it that way). For effect, you'll need to form a well-distributing aerosol, in a manner that germs survive, and that is an art in itself.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
9. Re:Small problem... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  So, because something can be found naturally in attics you feel there should be no restrictions on biomedical research using with it? I honestly don't get your point, beyond a knee-jerk anti-government reaction. Do you think people should be free to do anything they want with ricin, because it's easy to find and synthesize? Best I can tell is you're arguing from the extreme and I'm not sure why.
10. Re:Small problem... by LifesABeach · 2011-06-16 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  With vast amounts of Botox being purchased in Los Angeles by certain doctors, as far as military spending goes, it maybe faster to use some other pathogen that's more readily available.
11. Re:Small problem... by circletimessquare · 2011-06-16 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  thank you
  and an art best forgotten
  now we must listen to the 14 year olds tell us how easy it is to weaponize
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
12. Re:Small problem... by Mindcontrolled · 2011-06-16 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  An art best forgotten indeed.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
13. Re:Small problem... by camperdave · 2011-06-16 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  "it is actually very easy" said the anonymous RPG playing basement dweller
  the internet: where every 14 year old is a molecular biophysicist
  Obligatory XKCD
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
14. Re:Small problem... by Culture20 · 2011-06-16 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  and oh look, they want to restrict access to bacillus anthracis, a soil-borne bacteria with spores that can be found on every continent.
  They don't want to restrict it. They want it on a restricted list. It's the charge du jour for someone who hasn't committed a crime. "There's Anthrax in his garden!"
15. Re:Small problem... by black+soap · 2011-06-16 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  In Texas, having 3 pieces of labware is enough to be convicted of intent to manufacture methamphetamine. For example: Pyrex flask, filtration funnel, electric hotplate/heating element. These elements are all found in just about every coffee maker in the state. There are more than enough examples of this sort of thing already.
16. Re:Small problem... by JonySuede · 2011-06-16 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  It don't have to be an aerosol to be a weapon, you could use your germs to contaminate a big building water supply, you could infect a meat proceeding plant. You could ... You just have to think like a terrorist and you will see that there are many massively lethal applications of dangerous pathogens that don't require
  
  to form a well-distributing aerosol, in a manner that germs survive
  , to cause a lot of terror, which is the point of the terrorist after all.
  
  --
  Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
17. Re:Small problem... by Talderas · 2011-06-16 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  Uh. And what happens when the marauding killer space aliens that we are woefully unable to kill with our weapons come along?
  Where's our weaponized flu strains that are fatal to them? We'll be DOOMED.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
18. Re:Small problem... by idontgno · 2011-06-16 08:49 · Score: 1
  
  Where's our weaponized flu strains that are fatal to them?
  I can't help but feel that this calls for a "Your mom" joke right about here. But I also can't bring myself to tell it. Oh, well.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
19. Re:Small problem... by Mindcontrolled · 2011-06-16 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Admittedly, I have been thinking more military than terrorist there (and I am kinda thankful for the fact that I don't automatically think in terrorist terms...). Sure - even a single case of an obviously bioweapon-induced illness will cause more terror than I want to imagine. My point was more about military weaponization, the sort you'd use for area denial purposes.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
20. Re:Small problem... by girlintraining · 2011-06-16 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  now we must listen to the 14 year olds tell us how easy it is to weaponize
  Never said it would be easy to weaponize, just produce.
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
21. Re:Small problem... by Gryle · 2011-06-16 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  I'll agree with you on botulism toxin and anthrax, but the extraction of ricin from castor beans is pretty simple for anyone with a semester's worth of lab experience.
  
  --
  Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
22. Re:Small problem... by Gryle · 2011-06-16 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on what you mean by "weaponize". Getting a living bio-agent to aerosolize or delivering it effectively via munitions is difficult at best, but contaminating water or food supplies is fairly straight-forward. The insidious thing about biological weapons (and here I'm talking about living organisms, not biologically-derived toxins) is that they propagate on their own.
  
  --
  Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
23. Re:Small problem... by tsotha · 2011-06-16 12:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's not as easy as people generally believe. Take anthrax, for instance. Various groups (Aum Shinrikyo, Al Queda) and governments (Saddam's Iraq) have tried and failed to get something that has both potency and the proper physical characteristics. Anthrax comes in many strains, and not all of them are dangerous. Aum Shinrikyo, which was eventually able to mount the sarin gas attack in Tokyo, first tried to attack the city with anthrax. They had competent chemists and biochemists. And yet they failed because the strain they were able to procure wasn't suitable for attacking people.
  Beyond that anthrax tends to clump together. If you just breed a whole bunch of anthrax and try to spread it around a city you won't kill very many people. The clumps are heavy and will fall to the ground. A proper weapon requires additives, the composition of which isn't generally known outside researchers in a handful of governments.
  The only successful germ attack (in modern times, leaving aside Japanese experiments on hapless Chinese villages) was most likely carried out by an expert in germ warfare. Do you think that would be the case if it were so easy?
24. Re:Small problem... by KDR_11k · 2011-06-16 18:19 · Score: 1
  
  Given the lethal dose of botox is it really necessary to keep the bacterium alive? Just synthesize a few grams of that stuff and go aerosol with it and you've got a weapon of mass destruction.
  
  --
  Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
25. Re:Small problem... by countertrolling · 2011-06-16 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  For effect, you'll need to form a well-distributing aerosol, in a manner that germs survive, and that is an art in itself.
  Damn, and here I am thinking a simple sneeze on a crowded subway would do the trick...
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
26. Re:Small problem... by Mindcontrolled · 2011-06-16 19:57 · Score: 1
  
  If you ever grew some bacterial cultures, especially one of the more obscure ones, apart from bog-standard lab-strain E. coli, you should have learned that the little buggers are quite some little princesses. At our lab, we used to joke about needing a "micropsychiatrist" to persuade them to grow as intended.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
27. Re:Small problem... by Mindcontrolled · 2011-06-16 20:01 · Score: 1
  
  As I said in reply to another poster, yes - I have been thinking more on the military side of things. Actually, I don't want to think along the lines you propose at all, but in the end, if terror is all you want, yes, sure, things like contamination of the water supply will do the trick - even just a handful of victims will be enough to spread panic.
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
28. Re:Small problem... by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  Please say "weaponize" again, my brain doesn't hurt enough yet.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
29. Re:Small problem... by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 23:17 · Score: 1
  
  It depends on what you mean by "weaponize"
  What "weaponize" means is "I can't write proper English".
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
30. Re:Small problem... by Neil+Boekend · 2011-06-16 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  Mass destruction is against the laws of thermodynamics.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
31. Re:Small problem... by Gryle · 2011-06-16 23:50 · Score: 1
  
  Explain?
  
  --
  Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
32. Re:Small problem... by marcosdumay · 2011-06-17 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  Not so easy. Most infections don't spread so easily that they can't be contained. That is why we don't get pandemics often.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
33. Re:Small problem... by the+biologist · 2011-06-20 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  To "go ahead and try to concentrate/ weaponize without killing yourself" is easy. To successfully attack a population in the WMD style, takes a bit more.
  
  Finding a strain of anthrax which is suitible for attacking people would generally require testing on people. This is a simple concept, but apparently hard for the wackjobs to pull off. Perhaps the blatant horror of bioweopons development scared the actual researchers doing the worrk?
  
  Anthrax spores clump together, but that can be resolved if one is aware of the problem. The size of particles which will float in the air into the deeps of your lungs is known, as are several methods for attaining those partical sizes. Again, the wackjobs apparently did not do the research needed to know how to do what they wanted.
  
  Competant chemists were able to do synthetic chemistry... yay... but chemists and biochemists are not biologists, they don't deal with living things. How many experts are there on germ warfare, a subject which has rarely been applied? Microbiologists, pathologists, epidemiologists, beer-brewers, etc... they're all experts on some of the skills needed for germ warfare.
  
  I would like to hope that the various wackjobs aren't willing to do the research and that those who are willing to do the research are unlikely to be the wackjobs... how many plots have been foiled because the dumbass thought something they saw on TV/game/internets would work as planned?
FOOT and Mouth Disease? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 06:37 · Score: 0

When did it change from Hoof and Mouth Disease - or does Slashdot always use the British name for something when discussing a US government action?
1. Re:FOOT and Mouth Disease? by OolimPhon · 2011-06-16 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's foot and mouth disease... we're talking about politicians here.
2. Re:FOOT and Mouth Disease? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 07:02 · Score: 0
  
  That would by Foot IN Mouth Disease!
3. Re:FOOT and Mouth Disease? by crunchygranola · 2011-06-16 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  "Foot-and-mouth" disease is the term the official report uses -- and it seems to be the preferred term today. Try Googling: "foot-and-mouth disease" virus and "hoof-and-mouth disease" virus and compare the results.
  
  --
  Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
4. Re:FOOT and Mouth Disease? by LifesABeach · 2011-06-16 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  When interviewing Politicians, the Foot in Mouth pathogen spreads like no other available. The American Tea Party has had some limited success using this one.
Major risks still food contamination by WillAffleckUW · 2011-06-16 06:46 · Score: 4, Informative

While it is true that certain pathogens are virulent and can be airborne, ebola for example works so well because it has a long enough cycle to allow transmission.
Instantly lethal pathogens don't spread much, since they aren't mobile in a host. Visible signs early slow spreading.
You're at far more risk from food contamination in the food supply or sunstroke, actually.
That said, wise decision for the actual Facilites doing pathogen research (which include some I've worked in).

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. Re:Major risks still food contamination by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 10:09 · Score: 0
  
  While it is true that certain pathogens are virulent and can be airborne, ebola for example works so well because it has a long enough cycle to allow transmission.
  Umm...Ebola has an incubation-period of 5-18 days, that's not a long cycle for a virus, not by a long shot, especially not for one where transmission between organisms require contact with the infected's body fluid.
  What would truly suck would be if Ebola had an incubation-period of 3-6 months like some other vira, seeing as it has a mortality-rate of over 50%, and no effective treatment has yet been developed.
2. Re:Major risks still food contamination by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  that is not true. We have a vaccine, which has a high risk factor and is mostly effective if given just a few days before ebola infection.
  When ebola is spread from a bat cave, we immunize nearby villages once the first few ebola infections show up - this works fairly well, and your survival rate is much higher than without the ebola infection.
3. Re:Major risks still food contamination by izomiac · 2011-06-16 11:04 · Score: 1
  
  What would truly suck would be if Ebola had an incubation-period of 3-6 months like some other vira, seeing as it has a mortality-rate of over 50%, and no effective treatment has yet been developed.
  That's rabies. Mortality rate is barely a rounding error from 100% if symptoms appear. Thankfully, it's easily curable during the incubation period (can last up to two years, although I can't for the life of me figure out why most people get lazy and skip the last treatment), although if you're one of the unfortunate souls who get scratched by a rabid bat in your sleep... Heck, if it didn't have such a long incubation period I'd expect we'd have the zombie apocalypse on our hands.
4. Re:Major risks still food contamination by WillAffleckUW · 2011-06-16 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  True. I've seen presentations about the vaccine. Hate to be faced with such a choice if it's risky.
  
  --
  -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The Complete List of Pathogens by crunchygranola · 2011-06-16 07:05 · Score: 2
Tier 1:
- Bacillus anthracis (anthrax)
- Burkholderia mallei (glanders)
- Burkholderia pseudomallei (melioidosis)
- Ebola virus
- Foot-and-mouth disease virus
- Francisella tularensis (tularemia)
- Marburg virus
- Variola major virus (smallpox)
- Variola minor virus (smallpox)
- Yersinia pestis (plague)
- Clostridium botulinum toxin producing strains (botulism) - a late addition to the list
See: http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/legal/boards/fesap/Documents/fesap-recommendations-101102.pdf
--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
1. Re:The Complete List of Pathogens by LifesABeach · 2011-06-16 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  I've noticed that the Tea Party has had some minor success the 5th virus you mentioned, "Foot In Mouth" virus
2. Re:The Complete List of Pathogens by Marillion · 2011-06-16 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  And most of those species have a half-dozen or more strains with different levels of toxicity. For example in B.Anthracis (NCBI taxon:1392) has almost a dozen strains. Strain Stern (NCBI taxon: 260799) is mostly harmless because it's missing the two plasmids found in some other strains like Ames and Ames Ancestor (NCBI taxon: 261594) which produces very deadly toxins from plasmid px01.
  Ames was the variant released in the Antrax Attacks of 2001.
  http://pathema.jcvi.org/pathema/anthrax_resources.shtml
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
  
  --
  This is a boring sig
Botox is there by mangu · 2011-06-16 07:10 · Score: 1

According to TFS: "bacterial strains that produce the botulinum neurotoxin"
1. Re:Botox is there by mhajicek · 2011-06-16 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Which IIRC can be found in common dirt. It only produces the toxin when operating in anaerobic metabolism mode though.
2. Re:Botox is there by camperdave · 2011-06-16 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  Which IIRC can be found in common dirt. It only produces the toxin when operating in anaerobic metabolism mode though.
  So... don't eat dirt in a vacuum?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
3. Re:Botox is there by chrylis · 2011-06-16 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Right. It's in the proposal this panel is floating. I'm interested in the media reaction if this gets put into practice.
4. Re:Botox is there by ceoyoyo · 2011-06-17 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  Anthrax can also be found in common dirt.
  Botulinum toxin producing bacteria have the advantage of being very easy to culture - in poorly prepared preserves. Looks like that collection of Mason jars in the cupboard is going to suddenly be regarded as a weapons cache.
5. Re:Botox is there by marcosdumay · 2011-06-17 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  Not quite so. The point is that the Government is putting its big hand ou there again, interfering on a completely normal and not-more-dangerous-than-background activity again. The risk is that a big part of biological research at the US may die because of that.
  And of course, all the fears go away when the article points that it is just an update of the list, and the interference was there all the time. The research was killed long ago.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
A Pathogen I would like to "See" in the Wild by LifesABeach · 2011-06-16 07:49 · Score: 1

Full Monty Virus. Why can't the DARPA crew waste billions on this Pathogen? It would be every extremists own personal nightmare.
1. Re:A Pathogen I would like to "See" in the Wild by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  tl;dr. wayyyyyyyyyyyy too many paragraph breaks.
Still searching? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 08:18 · Score: 0

They don't list the virus that causes vegetarians. Maybe they haven't found it yet?
We musn't forget the dangers of... by toxonix · 2011-06-16 10:40 · Score: 1

Weaponized Margarine.
Kansas State University by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-06-16 23:40 · Score: 1

is now building the replacement institute for what was on Plum Island (emphasize ISLAND). This building is within eyesight of the university rec center, basketball coleseum, and football stadium.

Yet again, pork barrel politics and money addicted higer learning institutes may soon have a body count.
Learn to WRITE & SPELL properly, illiterate do by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-17 09:25 · Score: 0

The CORRECT spelling & phrase is not what you wrote:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2234578&cid=36429134

"Gotos have there place" - by JonySuede (1908576) on Monday June 13, @05:10PM (#36429134)
It's THEIR, indicating possessive, not THERE, you blatantly obvious illiterate dolt!
(LOL, If that's how you write english? I'd HATE to see your code you write (that is, IF you even do)).
APK
P.S.=> Payback's a BITCH, yea? See here, and I am waiting on your trolling behind to show up there:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2248218&cid=36479278
Just so I can publicly make you look more stupid than you already have clearly evidenced yourself to be!
... apk