Slashdot Mirror


Paper On Super Flu Strain May Be Banned From Publication

Pierre Bezukhov writes with this excerpt from an article at Doctor Tipster: "A Dutch researcher has created a virus with the potential to kill half of the planet's population. Now, researchers and experts in bioterrorism debate whether it is a good idea to publish the virus creation 'recipe'. However, several voices argue that such research should have not happened in the first place. The virus is a strain of avian influenza H5N1 genetically modified to be extremely contagious ... created by researcher Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Netherlands. The work was first presented at a conference dedicated to influenza that took place in September in Malta."

19 of 754 comments (clear)

  1. Peh. by unity100 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Someone has probably already crafted a similar version in a distant private or military research lab anyway. Its better that it got out and fixes are prepared.

    1. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then you can be thankful for the herd immunity that your more sensible peers are providing.

    2. Re:Peh. by evil_aaronm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Three words: Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.

    3. Re:Peh. by syousef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then you can explain to me why those who are supposedly providing me "herd immunity" get visibly infected and sick on a regular basis, and I don't.
        Hint - it's not any so-called "immune response" from their vaccines.

      I'll bite, is it because you're so obnoxious that nobody and no disease wants to be around you???

      You have no idea what you're talking about. Immunisation has it's risks (and it would not carry any risk if it was snake oil). But the benefit far outweighs the risk. You may well have a good immune system. I'll also agree that an overly sanitary environment is not good for children and that some germs will help their immunity, but you have to be selective. I don't let my children play in their own vomit, faeces and urine for instance, nor our dog's. I don't let them eat their dinner straight off the floor. The bottom line is that your chances of surviving a new deadly disease depends largely upon immunisation. Entire diseases have been eliminated. I don't care that you don't like it - the truth does not bend to a person's whims.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    4. Re:Peh. by Jhon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Three more words: Apples and Oranges.

      Not to excuse the inexcusable, but to deliberately fail to treat disease with very limited communicability and long incubation period is hardly the same is releasing Captain Trips... While I might think my country can make some pretty stupid choices, they aren't the kind that would destroy civilization.

    5. Re:Peh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A strong immune system vs a specific virus are two different things. Having your immune system exposed to various bacteria and viruses (on non-dangerous levels) helps strengthen your system to recognize and fight it. In fact, that's EXACTLY what a vaccination is! What you are doing (exposing yourself to common bacteria and virus) and vaccination are both the SAME THING but one is controlled while the other isn't. The problem with your method is that it doesn't NOT strengthen your immune system to viruses not common or are unique. You body can not fight what it does not know. Your body can only know by actually having it, and by having it, you must hopefully live long enough for your immune system to respond (some viruses can kill you before that time). That is why vaccination was created (basically nurtured bacteria/viruses) which introduces these unique viruses/bacteria so your body can learn about it. No matter how much you naturally expose your body, there are many things your body will never be exposed to.

      Herd immunity implies prevention of SPECIFIC often rarer viruses. A vaccine for polo only prevent polo, not the common cold if you didn't realize it.

      The immune system isn't so clear cut as strong / weak. Rather then that, it's more about how much it can recognize cells as dangers. An antivirus software is a good example. A good antivirus software can prevent alot of viruses but some it will not recognize as dangers. While a poor one may not be as good, as long as it can recognize certain viruses, it can prevent those specific viruses.

      Speaking about regular sickness (generic) and comparing it against vaccination (targeted/specific) shows that you obviously know nothing.

    6. Re:Peh. by paper+tape · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This sort of thing is why I've been saying for the last few years that I am far more concerned about terrorists with bioweapons than terrorists with nukes. The bioweapons are cheaper and easier to make, the raw materials easier to obtain, and the consequences of use potentially far more severe.

    7. Re:Peh. by greentshirt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, but Muslims don't have a monopoly on Batshit Crazy, plenty of that in the Christianity and other religions too. In fact, plenty of that in secular circles. Language is important, once we start equating words like "terrorist" with "Muslim", we're all one step stupider. If George Dubya Bush was smart enough to avoid making that jump, I have faith that you can be too.

    8. Re:Peh. by Surt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you're trying to spread it deliberately, don't get on a plane, hang out in the airport.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:Peh. by paper+tape · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You assume that the terrorists are not willing to kill half the planet to accomplish their goals, even if half their own people die in the process. They've already proven repeatedly that they're willing to sacrifice their own lives and those of their own people to commit terrorist acts.

      If half the world population were to die off (in equal percentages everywhere), countries like the US, UK and Germany would be vastly more affected in terms of productivity, influence, and ability to project military power than countries like Afghanistan, Yemen or Pakistan.

      The actual deaths would likely vary somewhat from one country to another - but industrialized nations would still be the most affected, and the terrorists could easily see the deaths of half their own people as an acceptable cost.

  2. M-O-O-N by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That spells life imitating art!

  3. Yes, it should be published by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If it was done, the information's out there. If the work's already been presented at a conference, it's pretty much a guarantee the black-hats have it. And if they don't already, they know it can be done and they've got enough clues to know where to go looking. So the question isn't whether we give the black-hats the information or not, it's whether only the black-hats get the information or whether the white-hats get it too. I'd rather have the information circulated so doctors and public health systems know what to look for and how to treat it when it shows up.

    1. Re:Yes, it should be published by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's your assumption. I'd rather we operate under the assumption that the black-hats don't have it. First of all, that seems more likely (it's not as though the full recipe would be presented at a conference), and secondly the penalty for releasing it if they don't have it is much worse than the penalty for withholding it if they do have it.

      Possibilities:

      00) Black hats don't have it, we don't release it. Very Good! No one has to die.
      01) Black hats don't have it, we do release it. Very Bad! We just gave the tools for murder on an unprecedented scale to everyone who wants them.
      10) Black hats have it, we don't release it. Bad. When and if they use it, we will be somewhat delayed while we realize "Hey, there's this new superflu that seems a lot like the one that Dutch guy came up with."
      11) Black hats have it, we do release it. Maybe good. We save some time researching cures, at the cost of making the recipe even more available than it already is (and thus saving the bad guys some time obtaining it).

      Make your own little game theory chart. Unless there is a very high probability that they have it, we're better off not releasing it. And as I said before, they likely don't have the whole thing.

      I know this is Slashdot and a lot of people think that information wants to be free, but trust me on this. The information doesn't give a shit. Some things really should be kept secret.

    2. Re:Yes, it should be published by pipedwho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The black-hats might have it, but the question is do you really want to release it to all the script-kiddies?

  4. Counterpoint by ugglybabee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger..."

    Whatever kills us, makes us dead.

  5. Re:Whatever doesn't kill us, makes us stronger... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless it cripples us. People always forget about the cripples.

  6. Banning a HUGE Mistake by meerling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A few years back some researchers (Australian?) accidentally made an infector much much more dangerous. That's why the scientist need to share this data. It's so they can understand this process and use that knowledge to defeat diseases. It's like getting over a canyon a persistent but ignorant person can eventually succeed by throwing rocks at it till it fills up, but an engineer can design and build a bridge in a fraction of the time and resources.
    With regards to the fears of terrorists, it's not a high probability, most of them wouldn't have the vaguest idea what to do with that information, the few that are left know enough to not be stupid enough to release a superplague on the planet. Your biggest worry should be the Military making a superplague, and being stupid enough to let someone dumb enough to use it actually get access to some of it.

    If you stop research because you are afraid that terrorists might use it, you would have to stop all research of any kind.

  7. Too late by Mortiss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "A genetic study showed that new virus strain presented five mutations, and all could be also observed in nature - but only separately, not all five combined."
    With this sentence, they have practically gave it away already. All one has to do now is to scan the scientific literature for the appropriate five mutations that confer increased airborne transmissibility, perform site directed mutagenesis and voila.

    They should follow the footsteps of Australian researches (who inserted IL4 gene into the mousepox creating a very lethal strain) and publish this anyway.

  8. I'd Say No by RobinEggs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know half of you are screaming at your monitors that "security through obscurity is no security at all", but security in biological information is not like that of computer code and hardware.

    It all comes down the the breadth and transparency of the ecosystem, in my layman's opinion. It's entirely plausible with, for example, Adobe software running on Windows operating systems to say that if White Hat A found it then certainly Grey Hat B and Mustache Twirling Russian Mafioso Black Hat C will find it or have already found and exploited it. Those are specific, limited, and completely knowable ecosystems invented entirely by humans, however. Of course someone else will find it; the universe in which "it" lives isn't terribly large, when you really look at the situation.

    Biology, on the other hand, is much bigger and much more mysterious; we're far stupider in biology than in any other science. We certainly didn't invent, do not control, and do not understand the ecosystems involved. You know far less from the sentence "I found five mutations that transform a particular H5N1 into a global killer." than you do from the sentence "I found a stack overflow hack in Acrobat which lets me read any pdf the target machine opens."

    In short, security through obscurity actually gets you a very long way in biological research. Not to mention that creating a virus is a lot faster than creating the vaccine; perhaps a substance of which a single vial released in downtown Detroit could kill half the humans on Earth long before the antidote was invented and adequately synthesized isn't the place to object on principle some deliberate obscurity.

    Seriously, look at the way flu vaccines are prepared. Maybe people should argue for the development of a faster way of inventing and growing vaccine (that is to say, faster than trial-and-error monkey testing followed by incubation in chicken eggs) before they request that blueprints for a killer flu become public information.