New Virus Jumps From Monkeys To Lab Workers

Death may be here soon... by QuantumLeaper · 2011-07-15 04:09 · Score: 0

What after everybody is Dead?

Re:Death may be here soon... by uncanny · 2011-07-15 04:16 · Score: 0

Then we sue!
Re:Death may be here soon... by gstoddart · 2011-07-15 04:56 · Score: 1

What after everybody is Dead?
Somehow, I'm forced to suggest an alternative.
The fact that they're releasing Rise of The Planet of the Apes in a couple of weeks seems apropos here. :-P

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Death may be here soon... by obergfellja · 2011-07-15 05:19 · Score: 1

dead people need to sue too.
Re:Death may be here soon... by slick7 · 2011-07-15 06:03 · Score: 3, Funny

What after everybody is Dead?
Somehow, I'm forced to suggest an alternative.
The fact that they're releasing Rise of The Planet of the Apes in a couple of weeks seems apropos here. :-P
Planet of the Apes is already here, look at all the monkeys and baboons in Congress.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:Death may be here soon... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 07:20 · Score: 0, Funny

And the White House too...
Re:Death may be here soon... by enrevanche · 2011-07-16 14:10 · Score: 1

This is a blatant falsehood. Please do not insult monkeys and baboons, it is well accepted that politicians are invertebrates and have no recent relationships to primates.

Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:10 · Score: 0

You forgot about AIDS.

Re:Duh by squidguy · 2011-07-15 04:12 · Score: 1

yeah, except that probably involved something more like Goatse, rather than simple proximity between humans and primates.
Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:23 · Score: 0

yeah, except that probably involved something more like Goatse, rather than simple proximity between humans and primates.
Anal stretching? While i know you mean goat sex, you still deserve to be moded down. Too bad i am out of point.
Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:29 · Score: 0

A monkey spread his arse incredibly wide and farted HIV into everyone's face?
Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:43 · Score: 1

Is it still "sex" if the entire animal is inside the orifice in question? In other news, who's ready for lunch?
Re:Duh by elsurexiste · 2011-07-15 04:49 · Score: 2

No, it involved a vaccination program with SIV-tainted products.

--
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
Re:Duh by theshowmecanuck · 2011-07-15 05:22 · Score: 1

Having been permanently damaged by viewing the goatse meme a good number of years ago, I still seem to remember that the analogy would be more as if she had had the whole monkey shoved up her ass a few times. Which in HIND sight is more logical, since the monkeys in question in this case look like they must have really small dicks. And she couldn't have infected them if she wore a strap on.

--
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Re:Duh by brit74 · 2011-07-15 06:17 · Score: 1

The summary says, "the first known case of an adenovirus jumping from monkeys to humans". Is HIV an adenovirus? I couldn't find any information that it is.
Re:Duh by brit74 · 2011-07-15 06:23 · Score: 1

To followup on this comment, HIV is a retrovirus (meaning its genome as stored as RNA). Adenovirus' genome is in double-stranded DNA.
Re:Duh by FatdogHaiku · 2011-07-15 06:56 · Score: 0

You forgot about AIDS.

That didn't jump, it shimmed up some ass-hat's penis... unless said ass-hat had a monkey in his butt, in which case it was a direct deposit deal.

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 10:54 · Score: 0

And socialism! And atheism!
Re:Duh by RockDoctor · 2011-07-17 01:13 · Score: 1

We don't know what the circumstance of the initial simian to human transmission was. It is perfectly possible that it was nothing more suspicious than someone cutting themselves while butchering a monkey for food. Not as much fun as a conspiracy theory, nor speculation about beastiality. But it's perfectly possible.

--
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"

free Planet of the Apes publicity by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:10 · Score: 1

One must wonder if this story has been released to create publicity for the reboot Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Re:free Planet of the Apes publicity by The+Moof · 2011-07-15 06:07 · Score: 2

This is what happens when a marketing company takes viral marketing a bit too literal.

Oh what could possibly go wrong. by unity100 · 2011-07-15 04:10 · Score: -1, Troll

Lets keep tampering with genes, viruses, mutagens 'privately', without scrutiny of public eye in private corporation's faraway labs as much as we can.

after all, what can possibly go wrong.

--
Read radical news here

Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:15 · Score: 5, Informative

The California National Primate Research Center. Hmm, does that sound like it's owned by a private corporation or the US Government? I know, lets make a bunch of retarded, baseless accusations under the assumption that it is without first taking 5 seconds to look it up.
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:19 · Score: 0

But... he does this... FOR SCIENCE!
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:21 · Score: 0

The California National Primate Research center is a United States federal government funded biomedical research facility.
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:21 · Score: 0

The persuit of knowledge is dangerous. Experimentation with practical application even more so.
But you know what happens if we don't take these risks?
Nothing.
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by Baloroth · 2011-07-15 04:22 · Score: 4, Informative

From Wikipedia:

The California National Primate Research Center (CNPRC) is a United States federal government funded biomedical research facility, dedicated to improving human and animal health, and located on the University of California, Davis, campus.

Yeah, sounds just like a private lab far away from the scrutiny of the public eye. Hell, the freshmen might even have trouble getting into the lab for late-night makeout/pot smoking sessions! Doubt it, though.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by unity100 · 2011-07-15 04:24 · Score: 0

the comment was not specific to this incident. your view is too narrow.

--
Read radical news here
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by unity100 · 2011-07-15 04:25 · Score: 0

comment had a broader horizon than your narrow look. you could have spared 5 seconds to think broader.

--
Read radical news here
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by rufty_tufty · 2011-07-15 04:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Worse than that.
If clever well funded scientists under careful observation do this there is a none zero chance of danger. However they will publish their findings and the state of the art will advance.
If you make it illegal to do this kind of research then someone somewhere will tinker with it.* They are much more likely to make mistakes and skip safety protocols.
Nothing significant will be learnt from their findings (because they can't publish) but we will face all the danger of their mistakes.
*They may be elite scientist working for military/uber-pharmaceutical company or they may be a less than fully talented fringe scientist in some less well funded/observed company/country - neither of those options are reassuring.

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by Angostura · 2011-07-15 04:30 · Score: 2

Oh, I assumed that the posting was caused by the spasming bought on by the force with which your jerking knee it your chin.
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by ledow · 2011-07-15 04:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

Nothing more than could go wrong with natural evolution over the the same course of time.
See, we have these things called DNA, that occurs naturally, and these things that happen to it called mutations, that occur naturally, and every time we wipe something out or solve a problem, we "force" the organism (indirectly) to move to a mutation that survives. In doing so, nature does the same things as we would do, except more efficiently, more quickly, more randomly and under far less control.
Wait 50 years. AIDS will be back, in a slightly different form. Bird flu will be back. Swine flu will be back (it is already, in various mutated forms that we can't treat). MRSA will be back (because MRSA is basically nothing more than an evolved bacteria).
30 years ago we hadn't even heard of MRSA or AIDS and today they are present most of the world. Guess what'll happen 30 years from now, especially if we eradicate either of those and leave lots more potential human hosts living for longer with freedom to copulate more than previously?
Nothing we do in genetics, or even huge tracts of biology, isn't happening too, now, around you, this second, under far, far less control. And guess what? If we don't tinker with it ourselves, we have no way to detect, understand, treat and cope with any of those natural changes that have a devastating effect on people (i.e. we'd be able to do fuck-all about AIDS, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, even just simple cancer). Cancer is a naturally-occurring mutation that makes a single cell out of billions in your body go ape-shit and not stop reproducing.
Despite all that, statistics show that people have NEVER lived as long as they do now (and cancer survival rates are phenomenal compared to even 10 years ago). All that's because of people tinkering.
Basically, your argument would make more sense reversed - why aren't we tinkering more? Tinkering helps, yet nature destroys and keeps coming back and back and back and attacking us with new things all the time that we take DECADES to understand.
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by Jeng · 2011-07-15 04:43 · Score: 2

It is when science goes in unexpected directions that progress is made.
So in a way "What could possibly go wrong" is the desired result.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by spire3661 · 2011-07-15 04:56 · Score: 2

Well said. Nature's unchecked experimentation is far more horrifying and rewarding then anything man can come up with. While we can often come up with marvels and directions nature might not have gone, the scope and timeline of what we have done so far is a joke. It is hubris in the most apt sense of the word to think we can outproduce nature at this point.

--
Good-bye
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by spire3661 · 2011-07-15 04:57 · Score: 1

Nature works on the exact same principal. THAT is what evolution is.

--
Good-bye
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by Troy · 2011-07-15 05:13 · Score: 3, Funny

Except when the answer to that questions is "zombies."
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by nospam007 · 2011-07-15 05:13 · Score: 1

Why? It's great!
You have cancer?
Use Public Transport and get cured for free!
(You might get the sniffles free on top)
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by NeverVotedBush · 2011-07-15 05:27 · Score: 1

Actually, humans can target certain mutations specifically and accomplish things nature might or might not have a mutation path to.

Things like making certain parts fluorescent and such. In nature there is an implied improvement in survival and/or reproduction that preserves a mutation and propagates it onward. Humans can create mutations that provide no such advantages.

But the difference is that as human pursue these various mutations, there can be unintended side effects and consequences. Things like bacteria that excrete alcohol for biofuels that happen to like to live in the soil and feed off plant matter. Their alcohol excretions can kill living foliage. If those bugs manage to get out of their scientific/industrial homes and escape into the wild - and survive - then we have created a path to wipe out vegetation.

I think that kind of scenario is along the lines of what people fear. Sure, nature could also come up with a bug that feeds off plant matter, excretes alcohol, and loves to live in the soil. But humans have already done it and now it is a liability if it ever gets out.
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 05:45 · Score: 0

"none zero"? Are you trying to say "non-zero"? "Non" rhymes with "gone" and "none" rhymes with "sun".
That sentence should be:
"If clever, well-funded scientists under careful observation do this, there is a non-zero chance of danger."
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 05:53 · Score: 0

Lets keep tampering with integrated circuits, computer networks, artificial intelligence 'privately', without scrutiny of public eye in private corporation's faraway labs as much as we can.

after all, what can possibly go wrong. Other than Skynet.
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by LibRT · 2011-07-15 06:35 · Score: 1

Dr Bob - is that you?!?
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by interkin3tic · 2011-07-15 06:55 · Score: 1

Yeah, sounds just like a private lab far away from the scrutiny of the public eye. Hell, the freshmen might even have trouble getting into the lab for late-night makeout/pot smoking sessions! Doubt it, though.
Davisite here. They would indeed have quite a hard time wandering in. Keeping non-authorized humans out would be enough of a concern purely for the contamination aspect. They study tuberculosis, HIV, and several other diseases out there, and the monkeys aren't cheap. They don't want dirty humans getting their stock sick. The much, much, much bigger security issue is the psycho animal rights movement native to northern California. The primate center is high on their hit list. Security is tight.

If a college student wandered about a mile out of town (it is a small town, so that's not -too- far from campus) away from nearly any signs of civilization, they'd be greeted with a large imposing fence that screams "Go away" and could probably keep a speeding car from charging on through. If they tried to go through the gate, they'd be greeted by at least one armed security guard. They presumably would not be on the approved list, and given the above security concerns, would have a hard time talking their way past. Safe to assume the doors are locked too.

It would not be trivial.
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by chimpo13 · 2011-07-15 08:30 · Score: 1

I used to work there about 6 or 7 years ago back when one of my co-workers allegedly tried to steal a monkey although it was determined that the monkey must've escaped by crawling down the drain. If there's one thing a monkey is likely to do it's go up, not run for the middle of the floor and try going down a drain pipe. Everyone assumed that it was a monkey heist that went wrong.
If they started arming the security that was there then, that would be far more dangerous. He's likely to shoot himself in the face while scratching his head with the barrel Planet 9 style.
Doors are locked. Doors to the SIV monkeys are always locked. Keys are constantly being changed as people quit or lose their keys. I'm still close friends with someone who works there. Keys are still changed a lot.

--
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Re:Oh what could possibly go wrong. by hamburgler007 · 2011-07-15 12:09 · Score: 1

Ha, That little adenovirus is nothing an adjustment can't fix.

Little known fact by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:15 · Score: 1, Funny

I heard it was the Umbrella division at the CNPRC where this initially happened.

Re:Little known fact by davester666 · 2011-07-15 05:11 · Score: 1

The lab is too cheap to have a free condom vending machine in the washroom? Or was it removed because of budget cuts?

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Little known fact by guybrush3pwood · 2011-07-15 05:39 · Score: 1

Are you suggesting they had sex with the infected monkeys?

--
Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
Re:Little known fact by MichaelSmith · 2011-07-15 11:12 · Score: 1

Maybe it ran out.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

Damn dirty apes! by definate · 2011-07-15 04:15 · Score: 2

You damned dirty apes!

--
This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

Re:Damn dirty apes! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 09:49 · Score: 0

Obligatory Ricky Gervais: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tXpclFasC4

Yay! by Dan+East · 2011-07-15 04:17 · Score: 0

The upside: the virus may one day be harnessed as a tool for gene therapy.

Oh, I feel so much better now knowing there is an upside! And here I was worried that a virus totally new and thus unrecognized by the human immune system might wipe out the bulk of the human race. Silly me.

--
Better known as 318230.

Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:19 · Score: 1

RTFA - it was essentially harmless to us.
Re:Yay! by geek · 2011-07-15 04:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why would it "wipe out the bulk of the human race"? We encounter new viruses every year and our immune systems adapt. The workers in question didn't die either. How do you make the leap from a simple virus in an ape jumping to a few isolated humans to it wiping out the human race? Been watching too many movies? How would this be different than say, avian or swine flu? Somehow because it comes from an ape suddenly we're all doomed? Grow up.
Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:21 · Score: 0

I agree. The bulk of the human race will be wiped out, but those who are left will develop some very nice gene therapy.
There's always a silver lining...
Re:Yay! by rufty_tufty · 2011-07-15 04:30 · Score: 1

I like the irony that the gene therapy developed would save you from the virus you created in the research. So by terminating the research you don't develop the cure you'll later need ;-)

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Re:Yay! by liquidweaver · 2011-07-15 04:38 · Score: 2

Life tip - I completely agree with your retort, the parent doesn't understand well how the immune system works. But the ad hominem at the end is not necessary, mate, and will make any audience side against you.

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Re:Yay! by Dan+East · 2011-07-15 04:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

The "new" viruses you refer to are mutations of existing human viruses - they are more the same than they are different. When a virus jumps species the risk is that it is different enough to not be efficiently recognized by the immune system. Our immune systems are already "pre-primed" with antibodies to viruses we have already encountered, and that gives us a significant advantage in fighting off the "new" viruses you refer to, which are generally minor mutations.

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:53 · Score: 0

Life tip - I completely agree with your retort, the parent doesn't understand well how the immune system works. But the ad hominem at the end is not necessary, mate, and will make any audience side against you.
Do you have any racist uncles or grandparents? Ever try telling them to stop being racist because it'll turn bystanders against them?
Telling a 4-digit-ID user on /. to change their approach is similarly futile, I think.
Re:Yay! by cbdougla · 2011-07-15 05:05 · Score: 2

The book, The Hotzone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hot_Zone), tells a story about a strain of Ebola that became known as Ebola Reston that was discovered in a research facility in Reston, VA in 1989.
It was an airborne strain that spread from monkey to monkey much like the Flu and was extremely fatal to the monkeys. But while it could (and DID) infect a human, it had no ill effects. The scary thing is that there are other strains of Ebola that are fatal to humans (Ebola Zaire).
Anyway, it's a little bit frightening how close we came here to an easily transmitted airborne virus that is fatal to 50 to 90% of the people who get it within 3 weeks of contraction. Yes, I know it would not wipe out the bulk of the human race...probably. But there are reasons we have pandemic plans in place and while things like the Bird and Swine flu have been blown out of proportion in recent years, the truth is that nature could throw us a curve ball at any moment and everyone who dismissed the bird and swine flu (including me) would be in for a surprise.
Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 05:05 · Score: 0

Logic tip - That wasn't ad hominem, it was just a simple personal attack. It only becomes ad hominem if you attempt to build an argument on that personal attack, which geek did not. Don't get me wrong, though. Insults are not (usually) valid arguments and they can certainly be inappropriate, but they are not automatically ad hominem, either. In fact, some of the greats in philosophy famously sprinkled their counter-arguments with carefully-worded (and frankly well deserved) ridicule.
Re:Yay! by geek · 2011-07-15 05:09 · Score: 1

All viruses are mutations of past ones. It's called evolution. Whether it's from one species to another, they are all mutations of past virii. We call them new because they are new mutations, not because God suddenly said "Let there be Virii!" Even species jumping virii have to do battle with our "pre-primed" immune system because there is very little it hasn't seen before, in one form or another. You act as if our bodies have never come into contact with virii from other species before.
Re:Yay! by geek · 2011-07-15 05:21 · Score: 1

Point taken, but I think that you're looking at the little picture and not the big one. Viruses have been evolving with us for millions of years (ok hundreds of thousands in our case). While a "curve ball" as you say is possible, it's also very unlikely. The last major curve ball was probably the "black plague" which put a big dent in society but was also highly treatable, only our ignorance kept us from treating it properly. We're much better about these things now.
You could say that AIDs was a curve ball. It's certainly killed enough people. We didn't handle it well in the beginning and as a result we're now seeing many people die from it which could have been avoided. But AIDS taught us a great deal. Combating these illnesses isn't just about the immune system. We have tools a simple virus can never have; intelligence.
The airborne Ebola is interesting though. I am by no means an expert on the subject but it fascinates me. Microscopic killers are always an interesting study.
Re:Yay! by Splab · 2011-07-15 05:33 · Score: 1

Following your argument, humans can successfully mate with a tiger, since we at some point originated from the same primordial soup.
Also, the reason for the h1n1 scare, was we humans have tried that interspecies thing before, notably during ww1 where millions died of the Spanish flu.
Also, the h1n1, unlike most virii, did more damage to young people than normal, suspicion is our immune system had not seen this strain before, where as older people might have been primed in outbreaks before 1970.
Re:Yay! by geek · 2011-07-15 05:38 · Score: 1

That doesn't follow my logic in any way shape or form. You should learn some of the basics of biology before attempting to make that analogy. Interaction with other species and contract germs/viruses is a far cry away from mating with them. But lets take your example anyway and then point out the Mule and the Liger. There are of course other examples.
Re:Yay! by bioster · 2011-07-15 05:45 · Score: 1

Following your argument, humans can successfully mate with a tiger, since we at some point originated from the same primordial soup
No, following his logic you could shoot a tiger with an elephant gun. Just the gun wouldn't work as well on a tiger as it works on an elephant.
Re:Yay! by interkin3tic · 2011-07-15 07:06 · Score: 0

But the ad hominem at the end is not necessary, mate, and will make any audience side against you.
Sometimes a mild ad-homenim gives the criticism a little extra sting. Maybe the next time Dan East gets paranoid that evil biologists are trying to kill him and make wild-eyed comments about it, he'll think back to the last time he let paranoia get the better of him, and think twice.

Maybe not, but "grow up" is pretty tame. I might have called him a luddite or a hypocrite, or suggested he calm down, but it's the internet, he should have a thick enough skin for that to roll off of.
Re:Yay! by liquidweaver · 2011-07-15 07:33 · Score: 1

Ok; I can see your point. Perhaps my urge to respond was tainted by the massive amounts of ad-homenim all over the internet. I guess what really provoked my inspiration is that I agreed with with geek completely, except at the end and for me it killed the credibility.

--
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Re:Yay! by izomiac · 2011-07-15 07:42 · Score: 1

This apocalypse scenario is much like gray goo. Bacteria and viruses have ridiculously high population sizes (e.g. bacterial cells on/in your body outnumber your own cells 10 to 1), very short generation times (e.g. 30 minutes), reduced genome stability (so faster evolution), and have been trying to reproduce at maximal levels for over a billion years. Our continuing existence defies that goal, which is a testament to just how effective our immune system really is. Something entirely new is unlikely to even be effective in attacking us, let alone evading our defenses. Most anything we make in the lab has probably already been done at some point in nature, just through random chance (e.g. mutation and horizontal gene transfer).
Re:Yay! by Dan+East · 2011-07-15 07:44 · Score: 1

Your argument is flawed, and I'm not sure why you are bringing religion into this either. Since all viruses are mutations of past ones, then why are some so much more deadly than others? Apparently you believe that since our immune system can fend off a virus, it can fend off any virus, because they share some common ancestry. That is absurd. Whether they had a common ancestry or not is moot. The longer a virus has to mutate within a specific species, there more different it will be from the point at which it "forked". Evolution is a two way street. When the virus jumps to a new species, that new species is seeing a virus that it did not have the opportunity to gradually evolve defenses against over time. Such an event CAN be catastrophic to a species. I didn't say the human race would go extinct, but that it is conceivable that the bulk of our species could die because of such an event. I didn't even say likely, but you cannot ignore that fact that it is a possibility.

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:Yay! by VortexCortex · 2011-07-15 08:28 · Score: 1

Why would it "wipe out the bulk of the human race"? We encounter new viruses every year and our immune systems adapt. The workers in question didn't die either. How do you make the leap from a simple virus in an ape jumping to a few isolated humans to it wiping out the human race? Been watching too many movies? How would this be different than say, avian or swine flu? Somehow because it comes from an ape suddenly we're all doomed? Grow up.
Though I agree this particular virus is not a serious threat, I would like for you to imagine for a moment the consequences of HIV were it an airborne pathogen. There is no cure, and we have not developed a resistance for it; Much like Herpes.
Great Caution MUST be exercised when dealing with infectious agents. If you do not think an entire species can be wiped out quickly by a single parasite I would like you to purchase an American Chestnut for "roasting over an open fire." Jack frost is not the only one who is nipping at your nose -- Ask the Native Americans about foreign diseases.
There are many viruses that other species have become resistant towards, and that we have no resistance against. Viruses mutate, and that their battle to survive within their hosts can make them more vicious. Some viruses are terminally incurable. Some diseases now spreading among humans initially only infected other species. Some diseases cause the extinction of a species.
Your chauvinism is the illogical product of an ignorant mind.
If you completely disregard the cautionary warning or fail to grasp the severity of the implications GP alluded to, or if you think that monkeys were a critical component in their statement, then you are truly a fool.
While you keep your head buried firmly in the sand, please take this opportunity to study the fossil record found therein which contains many extinct species; Some of which are extinct because of other lifeforms...
Note: Part of growing up is realizing that you can not know everything, thus it is important to heed others; Another part is being respectful. Clearly it is you who has not yet matured enough. The fact that you rationalized this immature act afterwards is even more proof of your own mental immaturity. Please, do not apply for a job handling bio-hazardous materials until you have attained maturity yourself.
Here is a bit of wisdom that may help you in your quest for mental maturity:
It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Also: A fool learns from his mistakes; A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.
I put it to you that a wiser man need not wait for foolish mistakes to occur at all.
Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 10:02 · Score: 0

Vocabulary tip - "ad hominem" is basically synonymous with "personal attack". In an "ad hominem" fallacy, a personal attack is used as the basis to (attempt to) undermine an argument.
Re:Yay! by DMUTPeregrine · 2011-07-15 11:42 · Score: 1

The Librarian would be very upset with you calling monkeys apes.

--
Not a sentence!
Re:Yay! by hamburgler007 · 2011-07-15 12:36 · Score: 1

Ebola and its "gentle sister burn out so quickly that it is difficult for it to become a pandemic.

Poste friste by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:17 · Score: -1

Forst poust

28 days later by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:18 · Score: 0

the zombies will be everywhere!

species-jumping by oldhack · 2011-07-15 04:18 · Score: 1

We don't really understand the biology of virus jumping species, do we? Other than the few documented cases of some viruses, that is - i.e., this virus x has done it before.

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.

Re:species-jumping by geek · 2011-07-15 04:24 · Score: 1

Avian flu, swine flu, the list goes on and on. Virii are just as, if not more, resilient than we are. We share genetic similarities in enough species than jumping from one to another happens frequently among virii. Everything from AIDS and Ebola to influenza. We are every bit a part of the animal kingdom as pigs, dogs, cats, apes and birds. We're subject to all the same biological curiosities and horrors.
Re:species-jumping by geekoid · 2011-07-15 05:05 · Score: 1

No matter how correct your post may be, as soon as you type "Virii" all credibility does out the door.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:species-jumping by geek · 2011-07-15 05:12 · Score: 2

I happen to like the word. It's much nicer than "viruses"
Re:species-jumping by PCM2 · 2011-07-15 10:53 · Score: 1

We don't really understand the biology of virus jumping species, do we? Other than the few documented cases of some viruses, that is - i.e., this virus x has done it before.
Pretty much every virus we know of has an animal where it usually lives (called a "reservoir"). For example, pretty much all flu viruses are thought to originate with birds, though pigs can also get the flu. Jumping species is not unusual; in fact it's generally considered the mechanism by which humans get viruses. They don't come out of nowhere, they come (originally) from animals, though sometimes they later adapt to where humans are the natural reservoir.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:species-jumping by oldhack · 2011-07-15 11:31 · Score: 1

I thought this another bullshit science journalism, but perhaps it's more the (my?) focus of the story.
That a virus jumped from some animal to human is a non-news, but that a specific virus jumping from a particular animal to people is, it seems, a notable scientific news.

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Re:species-jumping by PCM2 · 2011-07-15 22:53 · Score: 1

That a virus jumped from some animal to human is a non-news, but that a specific virus jumping from a particular animal to people is, it seems, a notable scientific news.
My own take on it is... only sort of. It's not so strange that a virus might jump from a specific animal to people. It's more strange that a specific virus might jump from an animal to people. But again, not really. I rate this story as scientifically interesting, but panic-worthy? Not in the slightest. Interesting biology observed, noted... that is all.

--
Breakfast served all day!

Zombie movies are holding back science by backslashdot · 2011-07-15 04:18 · Score: 1

I bet there will be the usual "I am legend" zombie jokes now. Seriously, while there are dangers in using a virus for gene therapy .. most viruses .. in fact a good 99% of them are handily defeated by the immune system. Also not all viruses spread easily. Furthermore when they are used in gene therapy their genes are removef are severely crippled

Re:Zombie movies are holding back science by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:22 · Score: 0

Zombies aren't real...
But a virus wiping out most humans could spread very rapidly. If it spreads for a few weeks with no symptoms, and then has a 99.99% fatality rate, we would be in trouble.
Re:Zombie movies are holding back science by JohnnyBGod · 2011-07-15 04:28 · Score: 1

I was actually thinking about "28 Days Later", but "I Am Legend" can work too.
Re:Zombie movies are holding back science by ByteSlicer · 2011-07-15 04:34 · Score: 2

in fact a good 99% of them are handily defeated by the immune system
Actually, most of them would easily defeat the immune system. But they evolved not to do so, since a dead host doesn't make a good vector...
Re:Zombie movies are holding back science by maxume · 2011-07-15 04:34 · Score: 1

In the novelette, the vampire disease blows in on the wind.
So blame present-day Hollywood, not "I am Legend".

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Zombie movies are holding back science by Ironhandx · 2011-07-15 04:37 · Score: 1

Actually a 99.9% fatality rate wouldn't even put us into trouble. 0.1% survival still leaves millions of humans alive to repopulate. We're like cockroaches at this point.
Re:Zombie movies are holding back science by l0ungeb0y · 2011-07-15 04:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

The lab monkey as desease vector scenario bares far more resemblance to 28 Days Later than "The Last Man on Earth/Omega Man/I am Legend"
Re:Zombie movies are holding back science by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 05:36 · Score: 0

I thought The Stand, but that really dates me and King's endings make me crabby.
Re:Zombie movies are holding back science by zAPPzAPP · 2011-07-15 06:08 · Score: 1

It does put you and me in trouble...
Reminds me of that idea to breed lucky humans. Can't remember where I read that though (I think it was some SciFi).
Re:Zombie movies are holding back science by ErikZ · 2011-07-15 10:37 · Score: 1

Well yes. The human immune system is pretty amazing. And when it doesn't catch something, huge swaths of people die.

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.

Phew! by Jethro · 2011-07-15 04:19 · Score: 1

That's a relief, I was worried it'd be a computer thing.

--

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.

Re:Phew! by blair1q · 2011-07-15 05:50 · Score: 1

Surely. Yawn.
Call me when a virus jumps from a Mac to a human.
Re:Phew! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 07:29 · Score: 0

The monkey's name was Mac, does that count?
Re:Phew! by blair1q · 2011-07-15 11:11 · Score: 1

Steve Jobs is a sick man.

sounds a bit like the marburg virus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:24 · Score: 0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marburg_virus

Lack of numeracy, AGAIN by omb · 2011-07-15 04:27 · Score: 1

This article, of the flavor of scientists (found|suggest) x ->y, when it was TOO LATE to get a single DNA sample!

Instead of a CarbonTax we need a FauxScienceClaptrapHotAirTax. There is far too much of it.

28 days later... by ilsaloving · 2011-07-15 04:28 · Score: 0

Almost the entire population of Britain is wiped out, save for a few lucky survivors.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/

Don't have sex with the lab monkeys!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:28 · Score: 0

Especially not the sick ones. Sheesh, how hard is that?

28^W525 days later by kmdrtako · 2011-07-15 04:29 · Score: 0

I can haz apocolyse

note to self by spongman · 2011-07-15 04:30 · Score: 1

note to self: steer clear of monkeys.

Re:note to self by guybrush3pwood · 2011-07-15 05:45 · Score: 1

note to self: steer clear of monkeys.
You're doing it wrong, mate. Steer at monkeys, hit them, and save the day, Bruce Willis style.

--
Perhaps I'm trolling, perhaps I'm not.
Re:note to self by MichaelSmith · 2011-07-15 12:08 · Score: 1

Like us they are nasty, scheming animals. In Malaysia one time my wife sat down to put some steroid cream on our son's eczema. A monkey casually walked past behind the seat. Too late I realised the walk was just a little bit too casual. It reached out and snatched the tube of cream in an instant, then ran away and started to bight in to it. We were horrified at the potential affect on the monkeys but there was no way to get it back.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

Begin the countdown by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:31 · Score: 0

Here comes the zombie apocolypse

Quickly, by Adaeniel · 2011-07-15 04:50 · Score: 0

Someone must inform Madagascar!

Infected with WHAT?? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:51 · Score: 0

...rage...

Raising revenues by antifoidulus · 2011-07-15 04:51 · Score: 1

So maybe, in retrospect, accepting a private offer for the monkey on lab tech porn wasn't such a great way to fund the lab after all. Damn budget cuts.

--
Monstar L

Re:Raising revenues by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 09:50 · Score: 0

"Get your hands on me, you damn dirty apes!"

Gene Therapy? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-07-15 04:52 · Score: 2

Unlikely. It will be weaponised for more desperate, enormous profits.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."

Re:Gene Therapy? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 06:03 · Score: 0, Insightful

Who would weaponize it and how would weaponizing this virus generate "more desperate, enormous profits?" Governments aren't interested aside from maybe the North Koreans, but they don't have money. Corporations aren't interested since they are legally required to maximize return on investment, and weaponizing viruses is expensive, illegal, and the business plan to profit from it is the same as the Underpants Gnomes'. That leaves terrorist groups, and they're not going to sit around sending a lab with dozens of scientists and technicians millions of dollars a year for a fucking decade to weaponize a virus that isn't even known to be fatal to humans yet, never mind that there are viruses out there known to be both fatal to humans and have been weaponized in the past.

In summary, you're a fucking idiot.
Re:Gene Therapy? by Type-R · 2011-07-15 07:14 · Score: 1

Just in case we want to kill off all the apes when we kill off the humans (for profit?) ? :)
Re:Gene Therapy? by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-07-15 07:28 · Score: 1

Look to the history of the development of Agent Orange.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Gene Therapy? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 09:10 · Score: 1

Agent Orange is a 50:50 mix of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4,5-T) and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). Both are synthetic auxins (plant hormones) that were developed in the 1940's for use as herbicides. Both were widely used in agriculture, with 2,4,5-T being withdrawn in the 1970's due to toxicity concerns; 2,4-D remains in used today and is one of the most common herbicides in the world. The US Army started development of what would eventually be called Agent Orange in 1945. The intent was to spray herbicide on enemy crops thus denying them of food. Not a surprising goal considering total war had been going on for five years straight. In Vietnam it was indeed used to deny the North Vietnamese food and ground cover, however it was not confined to North Vietnam but also included substantial parts of South Vietnam, plus Cambodia and Laos. This was done to deny guerrilla forces the ability to feed themselves and to force Vietnamese farmers into the large American and ARVN-controlled cities. The impact of the latter was far greater than the former and lead to widespread famine. If this were not bad enough Agent Orange was eventually found to be contaminated with highly toxic 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) which can be a synthesis byproduct when making some chlorophenol compounds, including 2,4,5-T, and 2,4-D.

So what exactly do herbicides have to do with making money by weaponizing a virus not known to be lethal?
Re:Gene Therapy? by peragrin · 2011-07-15 09:35 · Score: 1

hell yes, if we kill off the apes too then when our Columbia astronauts that actually traveled through a wormhole to the distant future arrive, they can rebuild human civilization not have to fight off apes.
Charles heston showed us the way.

--
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.

beastility by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:52 · Score: 0

... so the lab worker butt fscked a monkey?

Music to die to by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 04:56 · Score: 0

Time to queue up Don't Fear the Reaper

Wrong summary by pesho · 2011-07-15 04:58 · Score: 2, Informative

The summary has the article on it's head. Did the poster or the editors actually read the article??? The virus did not jump from the monkeys to the humans, but the other way around. Sick lab worker was the source of the virus, which jumped on the monkeys. As this was a completely new pathogen for them, they had no immunity and most of the infected animals died. This is typical 'small pox blanket' story.

Re:Wrong summary by scorp1us · 2011-07-15 05:03 · Score: 1

With the new Planet of the Apes movie coming out...

--
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Re:Wrong summary by SydShamino · 2011-07-15 05:10 · Score: 5, Informative

I think you read the article wrong.
The original source of the infection was perceived to be the rhesus monkey, because it was the only thing with antibodies that wasn't sick (and thus was presumed to be the carrier). The virus either passed from rhesus to human to titi, or from rhesus to titi to human.
Either way, a monkey made a human sick. The article specifically points out that this isn't a common human ailment, so it didn't originate in a human. A human wasn't the "source" of the virus. That's the entire reason it's usable for gene therapy; humans don't already carry antigens for it so we won't immediately kill it if it is introduced into our body with a beneficial payload. Theoretically. After all, even with no previous human exposure, the humans in this case managed to kill it off in four weeks.

--
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Re:Wrong summary by scorp1us · 2011-07-15 05:11 · Score: 1

"After testing the other monkeys at the primate center, which houses hundreds of enclosures, the researchers found one healthy rhesus macaque with TMAdV antibodies. That suggests the disease might have arisen in the macaques"

--
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Re:Wrong summary by Gideon+Wells · 2011-07-15 05:17 · Score: 1

Not quite that simple. I didn't even read the article and the summary had me scratching my head. That large number of dead monkeys and the humans are merely "ill"? It sounded backwards to me. So I looked at the articles.
Not that they could be blamed for not at lealst doing a quick reading. After opening the links you can see that the article says monkey->human transtion. The journal states it was likely not native to the monkeys, implying Human->Monkey (or possibly, human->monkey->human), in the summaries, but adds more research is needed to confirm the direction of species jumping.

--
by Anonymous Coward: I, for one, welcome the shift from car analogies to pizza analogies. um.. overlords?
Re:Wrong summary by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 05:28 · Score: 0

I think you read the article wrong.
either passed from rhesus to human to titi, or from rhesus to titi to human.
Titties?
Re:Wrong summary by lahvak · 2011-07-15 05:44 · Score: 1

There are two articles linked in the summary. The actual "summary" itself is actually nothing but the first paragraph of the Science article, copied verbatim, with two links added to it.
The second linked article appeared in PLoS Pathogens, it is the actual research article reporting on the case, and while it does not specifically identify the vector of infection, leaving open even the possibility of introduction of the infection by a non-primate species, they clearly state: "Several lines of evidence support the contention that the direction of TMAdV transmission was zoonotic (monkeys to humans) rather than anthroponotic (humans to monkeys)."
While I am not sure whether the poster or the editors read any of the articles, I would definitely recommend you to read them before posting here.

--
AccountKiller
Re:Wrong summary by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 06:25 · Score: 0

The summary has the article on it's head. Did the poster or the editors actually read the article???
Neither did you, apparently, as you are completely wrong.
Re:Wrong summary by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 06:35 · Score: 0

humans don't already carry antigens for it so we won't immediately kill it if it is introduced into our body with a beneficial payload
You must have meant antibodies instead of antigens. The virus contains the antigens.
Re:Wrong summary by cthulhu11 · 2011-07-15 18:46 · Score: 1

*All* vivisectionists and torturers are sick. I'm disappointed to read the above, as I'd hoped that some human scum had received some payback.

I for one... by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-07-15 05:03 · Score: 0

... welcome our new human killing viral monkey overlords. Better than those DAMN DIRTY APES!

--
I8-D

Small pox blankets by handy_vandal · 2011-07-15 05:06 · Score: 1

"This is typical 'small pox blanket' story."

The phrase "small pox blanket", while applicable to cases where the disease was spread accidentally via blankets, is better reserved for those cases where disease-carrying blankets were deliberately used as vectors of infection against enemy peoples, such as the seige of Fort Pitt.

--
-kgj

Re:Small pox blankets by pesho · 2011-07-15 05:07 · Score: 1

agreed

Shades of "The Hot Zone" ... ! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 05:06 · Score: 0

If any of you out there find this interesting, I suggest you would enjoy
Richard Preston's excellent book "The Hot Zone". In the book
there is a discussion of how Ebola virus escaped the confines of
a biosafety containment level 4 lab in Fort Detrick MD.

It's a damned good read.

Re:Shades of "The Hot Zone" ... ! by gknoy · 2011-07-15 06:59 · Score: 1

Holy shit.
http://richardpreston.net/preston-books/hot-zone
That exceprt is horrifying. I could not stop reading it, and wanted to curl up into a fetal ball and whimper. I'm not sure I could read the book, but the exerpt was very compelling reading (apparently). That is some seriously scary stuff.

*phew* by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 05:10 · Score: 0

Glad it wasn't 12 monkeys...(I'm sure someone else said this already)

"Within weeks"? by SlappyBastard · 2011-07-15 05:17 · Score: 1

What they meant to say was "28 Days Later".

--
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.

teh zombies by Taibhsear · 2011-07-15 05:20 · Score: 1

analyzed lung tissue samples from the dead monkeys and identified a never-before-seen adenovirus, which they named titi monkey adenovirus (TMAdV), or "T-virus."

What could possibly go wrong? by ficuscr · 2011-07-15 05:20 · Score: 0

Hasn't Hollywood taught us anything?

Workers never listen... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 05:37 · Score: 0

When I said to inject the monkey, I meant with the needle!

HIV by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-07-15 05:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, one percent of Caucasians are immune to HIV. Not 1% of people, just 1% of caucasians. HIV goes airborne, bye bye human race that can't afford drugs, which is 99.9% of them once demand goes to 100%.

Adaptability rarely happens over a short period with slowly reproducing creatures. Virii, reproducing at an unimaginably faster rate can adapt faster. It's a race we can never win.

--
I8-D

Re:HIV by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 05:50 · Score: 0

...creatures. Virii, reproducing at...
Hmm:
Dictionary.com: virii - no dictionary results
m-w.com: virii - The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary...
So unless you like sounding like a fucking tool to the rest of the world, how about just using the correct form of the plural instead of being a poser? (The correct form, incidentally, is "viruses.")
Re:HIV by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 06:35 · Score: 0

Yeah, one percent of Caucasians are immune to HIV. Not 1% of people, just 1% of caucasians.
Citation needed.
Yes, I know I could Just Fucking Google It. I won't. You claimed it, you cite it.
Re:HIV by Smidge204 · 2011-07-15 06:55 · Score: 1

Genetic resistance to AIDS works in different ways and appears in different ethnic groups. The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected. One theory suggests that the mutation developed in Scandinavia and moved southward with Viking raiders.
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198
=Smidge=

Deadly Mutaba Virus by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 05:47 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jqJuP1drko&t=3m35s

In other news... by ATestR · 2011-07-15 05:48 · Score: 1

New Virus Jumps From Infected Computers To IT Workers.

--
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 06:26 · Score: 0

snowcrash
Re:In other news... by Greyfox · 2011-07-15 09:57 · Score: 1

Yeah, and once the Monkey Virus infects your boot sector you pretty much have to low-level format to get rid of it!

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Not the first time by mswhippingboy · 2011-07-15 05:50 · Score: 2

This happened back in 1987 at NAMRL (Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory) where 3 handlers (plus one of the handlers' wives - the first human-human transmission) were infected with B-virus (cercopithecid herpesvirus 1, Herpesvirus simiae), two of which later died. From what I was told (from health care workers that cared for them at the time) it was quite a horrible way to die; herpes lesions covering almost their entire bodies.

http://www.brown.edu/Research/Primate/lpn26-3.html

--
Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.

Re:Not the first time by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 10:42 · Score: 0

And again in 1995 in Cedar Creek, California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreak_%28film%29

Monkey fucking fagets by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 06:04 · Score: 0

That's what you get for fucking monkeys, you dirty monkey fucking fagets

Re:Monkey fucking fagets by tbird81 · 2011-07-15 10:57 · Score: 1

Well what did your mother get for fucking a retard?
That's right... You.

Ebola Next by DrChandra · 2011-07-15 06:07 · Score: 1

Wow, yeah, gene therapy, that's great. Who is going to need it if we are all dead? Read "The Hot Zone" by Richard Preston, and you'll then know why this is terribly bad news.

--
Words, words, words ... Buz, buz! - Hamlet, Act II, Scene II

Actually YOU are wrong: by geekoid · 2011-07-15 06:24 · Score: 1

From the article:
"After testing the other monkeys at the primate center, which houses hundreds of enclosures, the researchers found one healthy rhesus macaque with TMAdV antibodies. That suggests the disease might have arisen in the macaques and somehow passed to lab workers or the titi monkeys via shared medical equipment or some other contact between the two species, the researchers report today in PLoS Pathogens."

So manaque -> Human -> titi
OR

So manaque -> Human
-> titi

OR

So manaque -> equipment -> Human
-> titi

In ANY case, the macaque appear to have had it first, then humans.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

ok now.... by hesaigo999ca · 2011-07-15 06:39 · Score: 1

Ok John , which monkeys have you been kissing , we need to know NOW!.....

Blame Singapore. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 07:30 · Score: 0

I went on EBay to look for a tool to write DNA code that would fight the virus, and the Singaporeans want too much for such a synthesizer. Keepin the mans down.

http://cgi.ebay.com/BECKMAN-OLIGO-1000M-DNA-SYNTHESIZER-POWER-UP-1000-M-/280475408029?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item414da3169d

time to fess up by Gravis+Zero · 2011-07-15 08:22 · Score: 1

which one of them was having sex with the monkeys?

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

!@#!@ Who set all these lab monkeys free? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 09:23 · Score: 0

"!@#!@ Who set all these lab monkeys free?"

Classic line of the Terran Science Vessel in SC1...

In a related story... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-15 12:04 · Score: 0

...Sales of Resident Evil 5 are up almost 30% after the LAPD bought five (5) copies of the game for "training purposes."

The bad news... by ToddInSF · 2011-07-15 18:42 · Score: 1

It's got out into the general population, has mutated, and we're all going to die. Ooops.

155 comments and not one mention of Outbreak by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-16 00:54 · Score: 0

I am disappoint...

HIV by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-17 12:27 · Score: 0

Isn't this how HIV started? A virus spreading to humans from apes.

Monkey flu by wye43 · 2011-07-18 02:07 · Score: 1

The flu of 2011! Hide the kids and women!

Slashdot Mirror

New Virus Jumps From Monkeys To Lab Workers

160 comments