One of Two Hotly Debated Avian Flu Papers Finally Published

daveschroeder writes "After a marathon debate over a pair of studies that show how the avian H5N1 influenza virus could become transmissible in mammals, and an unprecedented recommendation by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) to block publication, and its subsequent reversal, a study by Yoshihiro Kawaoka at the University of Wisconsin–Madison was finally and fully published today. 'Experimental adaptation of an influenza H5 HA confers respiratory droplet transmission to a reassortant H5 HA/H1N1 virus in ferrets' appears in the journal Nature."

Comments

Death

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to sound fatalistic, but one day or another one of those guys makes a mistake and then 90% percent of mankind is going to die.

Re:Death

[busyqth]

The key insight escaped you: It won't be a mistake.

Re:Death

[interkin3tic]

Biologists have always been risking our extinction. I mean, the Cuban Sniffle Crisis? Hello? Didn't we learn ANYTHING from that?

I'm sorry, what's that? Cuban MISSILE crisis? Humanity has been flirting with it's own extinction through science for quite a while now? We still have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over, and this virus hasn't even been created yet?

Well, I mean, still, DEADLY DISEASES, we've never played around with that before, that's unique! What are we thinking?

What? The US continues to maintain smallpox stocks long after it's been eliminated in the wild for no obvious reason? And a naturally-occurring disease like Ebola could get into a major international airport and have much the same effect?

Hmm... so there's not really much to be scared about with this specific paper, we're constantly on the edge of catastrophe? Well then... that's oddly reassuring, kinda...

Re:Death

[compro01]

AFAICT, this isn't genetic engineering, just old fashioned selective breeding.

And if selective breeding can manage it, it can happen on its own if the proper selection pressure comes into play.

We're constantly flirting with extinction

[bobwrit]

This isn't particularly new for the human race. Look at MAD, for example(which is still fairly real - We still do have enough nukes to wipe out all life on the planet fairly effectively). One person, with their finger on the trigger, could slip up and 'accidentally' push the button, and cause not only the death of Humans, but also others. I'm sure there are other examples of humans having a large amount of control over the advancement of the human race, but that's the one that popped into mind. As we grow, and advance technologically, we'll keep developing even better ways of effectively causing ourselves/other species to become extinct. We're a violent race, when you think about it. While I don't like it, I'm just trying to be realistic as far as looking at humanities tendencies.

Re:We're constantly flirting with extinction

[rve]

Apparently not. Of course, that link ignores nuclear winter, which would do sufficient damage to Earth's ecosystem to most likely wipe out humanity along with most other species, although some very radiation-hardened otherwise hardy life would probably survive.

The Criticism and debate section is the most interesting part...

My generation was brought up with the common knowledge that there were enough nukes to destroy all life on the planet many times over, and that the radiation of a nuclear blast would make a spot uninhabitable for thousands of years.

I remember how shocked and surprised I was as a teenager (don't laugh, there were no discovery channel, google or wikipedia) when I learned that neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki are abandoned lifeless nuclear wastelands today. An important part of the common knowledge was clearly based in fact. As that informationisbeautiful link you quoted shows, a simple thought experiment quickly shows that the part about destroying all life on the planet is bogus too.

This puts the whole MAD meme in a different light. The only way to win is not to play? The military probably did the same calcs on a paper napkin and came to a different conclusion. They never stopped planning to fight and win a nuclear war.

I take all common knowledge with a grain of salt these days. For lots of things everybody 'knows' there is actually no evidence, or even evidence to the contrary (see the health benefits of vitamin C supplements or dietary fiber).

Re:oh great

[g0es]

Human influenza can pass between ferrets and humans. http://www.petmd.com/ferret/conditions/respiratory/c_ft_human_influenza_virus

Re:oh great

[busyqth]

Solution: don't share saliva with a ferret.

War on Science? More like Science war on us

[mwfischer]

THIS WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED UNDER BUSH.
http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54277/

Really. It wouldn't have happened.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/02/10/obamas-budget-gives-a-boost-to-science- /did I make a funny?

Re:oh great

[Anonymous Coward]

>Solution: don't share saliva with a ferret.

You act like it's so simple.

Re:oh great

[Surt]

How do you avoid being bitten by a drop ferret?

Re:oh great

[TheRealMindChild]

duct tape

What nobody seems to get

[bmo]

What nobody seems to get is that by suppressing research into viruses and how they spread guarantees that MomNature, when she comes up with one, will make a virus to kill us all while we are standing around unprepared.

MomNature, unlike terrorists, doesn't sleep. Ever. Because evolution, baby.

Sure, use that "Ahmed the Goatfucker Terrorist" bad-movie-plot to justify silencing science. It will eventually come around to bite all of us in the ass.

...[B]ecause the grim reaper bears no doubt, cares not if you have prepared your way, and leaves crushed Zagnut nodules in the carpet. --Blair

--
BMO

Re:Exactly what the Muslims want

[LeDopore]

Nice troll there. Sorry to the community that I'm feeding you, but I can't just sit there seeing your comment at +2 without pointing a few things out.

I'm an atheist, but I think I wouldn't be if I were born in a Muslim country. There are places in the world where if you're not a Muslim (or a Catholic, etc.) you're a social pariah. Many people have to at least pay lip service to a creed, and even if they would rather become atheist given the freedom of choice, they're not going to alienate themselves from their family and social support structure by "outing" themselves in a declaration of a radically different/nonexistent faith.

Comments like yours therefore discriminate against people not only by choices, but by where they were born. That's pretty narrow.

Secondly, I'd like to point out that the way a faith is interpreted is way more important than what the letter of the sacred texts might say. The Bible praises people for killing a man found gathering firewood on a Sabbath. Obviously, most sane Christians don't choose to follow that part of the Bible. Sane Muslims don't want to kill us. People who are currently insane Muslims would probably be insane atheists if Islam were to disappear overnight.

Similarly, every Muslim I've met is sane, friendly and understanding. If I had to make generalizations, I'd even say that Persian culture (at least the fragment that's escaped from Iran's bizarre regime) encourages contemplative meekness, not the crazy Jihad-spewing vitriol that the US South's pundits would have us believe is mandatory for every follower of Allah.

As an individual, you want to be judged by your actions as an individual. Please extend the same courtesy to Muslims individually, which means refraining from labeling them collectively as aggressive nut cases bent on world destruction.