Slashdot Mirror


Mutant Flu Researchers Declare a Time Out

New submitter scibri writes "Researchers working on highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza have said they will stop work on the virus for 60 days, to allow them to explain the importance of their work to politicians and the public. Quoting: 'Despite the positive public-health benefits these studies sought to provide, a perceived fear that the ferret-transmissible H5 HA viruses may escape from the laboratories has generated intense public debate in the media on the benefits and potential harm of this type of research. We would like to assure the public that these experiments have been conducted with appropriate regulatory oversight in secure containment facilities by highly trained and responsible personnel to minimize any risk of accidental release.'" Reader Harperdog sends in a related article arguing that we shouldn't be having a debate about the censorship of research, but rather a debate over whether the research should have been allowed in the first place.

15 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. English is tricky by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are they researchers for the mutant flu or are they flu researchers that are mutants? Or did the mutant flu make them mutants?

    1. Re:English is tricky by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are they researchers for the mutant flu or are they flu researchers that are mutants? Or did the mutant flu make them mutants?

      Yes.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:English is tricky by hedwards · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, the researchers are themselves a highly evolved mutation of the influenza virus.

  2. Handwringers & luddites by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And this is the way the new Dark Ages will begin. Not from where you'd expect, religious fundamentalists who are offended by the challenge reality presents to their mythology. But from easily-frightened handwringing "ethicists", who had they been around in the time of the caveman would have taken away Ugh's flint for fear he'd burn down the forest were he to succeed in starting a fire.

    1. Re:Handwringers & luddites by kelarius · · Score: 5, Informative

      comparing creating fire to creating a super flu is retarded. When they screw up and it is released, and they will f*ck up, they are humans, i hope your the first one infected.

      This statement is just fucking retarded and ignorant. There has been research going on like this for the better part of a century, including WEAPONIZING even more dangerous bugs than the flu, and none of that has ever been released. Why does everyone think that this one will be any different, the system is proven to work and I'm not the least bit concerned.

      --
      Personally I'd rather have my idiots at home glued to the TV than out doing idiotic things
    2. Re:Handwringers & luddites by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      In all fairness, Ugh really shouldn't be trusted with fire.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Handwringers & luddites by m.ducharme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One could argue that setting humanity back a few centuries and wiping out half the population would be good for the planet (and perhaps ultimately save the species). It's not an argument I'd be prepared to make, but it's one I'd take seriously, if someone else were to make it.

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
    4. Re:Handwringers & luddites by siddesu · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nah, it isn't some mythical "ethicists" that are the problem. Two things are at work here that have shaped this kind of attitude.

      First, there is a gradual and seemingly purposeful dumbing down of public education, especially in the "civilized" world. When I was growing up, I had boring math and physics books with theorem proofs and many problems in them. These days my kids have pictures, diagrams, bold colors and boxes with all sorts of historical and "cultural" references, but what was standard hardness in my book is now "optional" or "advanced" and "can be skipped without loss of continuity". The situation is the same in every field that teaches science. Teachers are poor, undereducated and not interested in teaching. Kids are "spared" the "psychological shock" of failure that low grades imply. The situation in higher education somewhat similar, except at the very top, which is accessible to the very few -- who turn out to be the researchers.

      Science is hard and getting harder, and to make sense of it, you need to be taught about the basics. There is no time anymore to figure it out for yourself. No education == fertile supply of "luddites". Incidentally, this also means a fertile supply of "consumers".

      Second, there is the media world, which has totally gone down the drain in terms of quality. Serious journalism, where reasonably educated people would research a topic and write about it in articles long enough to cover the subject in some depth and breadth has devolved into idiots spewing out 150-200 word articles, or "blog posts" or "twits" of 140 chars or less. They make money by try to make a sensation out of everything. More and more people seriously believe that the Wikipedia article and the top hits on google on any topic give them the full picture. So, you are undereducated and fair and competent coverage, that is filtering out manipulative interests is almost inaccessible to you. How are you not going to become a "luddite" in some fashion or other?

      Add to this the growing disconnect between politics, where more and more things is internationally and behind closed doors, and you can understand why people distrust the "official" line more and more, and turn to "the fringe" -- all these movements that we here usually laugh at. Unlike the "official" coverage, the fringe is cozy, warm, easy to understand, and sounds plausible to most in the audience. You can find friends who think like you and join your own misinformation bubble, deepening the problem above and adding psychological support and motivation that further solidifies your "luddite" attitude.

      This is your recipe for the dark ages, and, sadly, it starts with your government screwing up the public education and your corporations converting journalism in a platform for sales enhancement.

  3. I would rather.... by Brannoncyll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...have someone studying it now rather than having them start when its already too late. It can take months or years to create a vaccine, then more time to manufacture/distribute it to the public. By this time a large proportion of the world's population could be infected.

    1. Re:I would rather.... by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Informative

      I dont think the argument is over whether it should be studied or not. After a little digging, the argument seems to be over the fact that they are studying it in Biosafety Level 3 facilities, instead of BSL4. As my post below states, BSL3 is for treatable diseases, and BSL4 is for untreatable ones. This one isn't, and should be in BSL4 according to those rules.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  4. Akin to people walking out with data... by HockeyPuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We would like to assure the public that these experiments have been conducted with appropriate regulatory oversight in secure containment facilities by highly trained and responsible personnel to minimize any risk of accidental release.

    Why does this remind me of all the stories where some contractor walked out of a "secure $organization facility" with highly sensitive data/source code/credit_card numbers etc...?

    Should we be surprised when we read a story one day that says that some Chinese researcher walked out the door with a container of some highly contagious strain of Ferret Flu...

  5. 60 days by phrostie · · Score: 5, Funny

    and that should give us time to find that Damn ferret.

  6. Re:Either them or someone else by Gotung · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Newsflash: SOMEONE is already doing it on a scale so massive that human beings can't even come close to competing with. That someone is called The Universe, or more specifically in this case the Planet Earth.

    Flu virii are replicating and recombining on their own. They do it all day every day in billions of organisms around the planet. By doing a tiny tiny tiny version of the same thing in a controlled manner in a lab, we can learn a whole lot about that natural process that will provide wonderful insights to help combat the really bad stuff that the evolution of these virii WILL produce at some point.

    In all likelihood all of the combinations that these scientists come up with already exist somewhere.

  7. Why does the virus have to be both? by Karmashock · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I see no reason for an experimental virus to be both highly contagious and deadly at the same time. Couldn't you learn the same thing from two viruses. One that was very contagious but not dangerous and another that was very deadly but not contagious?

    Why put the warhead in the missile if you don't intend to kill people? if you want to test the missile, put a dummy warhead in it. If you want to test the warhead, then detonate without the delivery mechanism.

    Viral researchers do this sort of thing all the time. They test contagious viruses with harmless strains to watch how they get into the body. Deadly strains are typically injected. They're not airborne.

    Maybe I don't understand what they're doing but the whole thing smells like a germ warfare lab if they're combining the two and trying to make them more deadly. That's a weaponization program.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  8. risk/reward analysis by glodime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is a risk/reward analysis; to me the risk of killing billions of people is much heavier on my scale of importance than any reward from the research.

    The risk of research: Billions of people could die if containment fails or if natural strains evolve and spread before an effective vaccine is developed.
    Reward of research: Eliminate risk of Billions of people dying if natural strains evolve and spread or containment fails.

    Risk of NO research: Billions of people could die if natural strains evolve and spread.
    Reward of NO research: eliminate risk of Billions of people dying from containment failure.

    Which is better? There is no action that creates zero risk of Billions of people dying.