E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSOne of the predictable consequences of science’s rapidly growing knowledge of genetics is that the knowledge can be put to use to kill, harm or terrorize. Controlling dangerous knowledge is not easy and rarely foolproof—just look at the history of successful spying to get the secrets to make nuclear weapons or crack secret codes. The ability to make a new nasty class of biological weapons that could be used against us raises two important questions — should scientists try to make dangerous microbes and, if they do, who should they tell about their work?
Recently, scientists working for the U.S. government made a deadly flu virus, H5N1, even more contagious by making it airborne. In its natural form, H5N1 kills more than half the people it infects, but almost never spreads from person to person. The new modified strain changes that. Last week, there was a kerfuffle when government advisers asked the details be kept secret and not published in scientific journals to keep the information from falling into the wrong hands.
The scientists who tweaked the H5N1 virus say their work was necessary because they had to see if it was possible for the virus to mutate – and if it was, so that countries could take more dramatic steps to eradicate it, reported the New York Times.
But others say it should never have been created in the first place, it’s too dangerous and could get out of the lab and into the population.
So should scientists even be studying or making nasty microbial critters? The answer is yes. The only way to anticipate and respond to changes in nature that convert a relatively harmless strain of flu to a pandemic killer or to figure out ways to deal with horrors like flesh eating bacteria is to create and study them.
The second question becomes the key one—who should have access to this knowledge?
We need to do all we can to keep dangerous information out of the hands of both the bad and the irresponsible guys. This means not publishing the full formula for lethal microbes. It also means keeping an eye on where biological samples are shipped, who is invited to study at key laboratories and teaching ethical responsibility over and over again to budding scientists. It also means issuing government guidelines that journals, publishers, website managers and meeting organizers can follow to restrict what is made public that is obviously dangerous.
Poll: Should scientists create deadly viruses?
Some will sneer and say censorship has absolutely no place in science. But given the ways in which patents and trade secrets shape who has access to findings and data, that view is simply naïve. Others will say once the government starts dictating who can know what, the slope gets very slippery. But, the government should not make the rules — scientists, in consultation with other experts, should.
Some say no restrictions will work—information always gets out in the end. But we don't have to make the end easy to reach. The dangerous uses of genetic knowledge should be kept as restricted as we can make them.
Art Caplan, Ph.D., is the director for the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. Follow him on Twitter @ArthurCaplan.
Read more by Art Caplan:
Bioethicist: Plan B trumps good science with bad policy
Breakthrough of the year? AIDS discovery could put virus on the run
Leave a Comment:
Once again, it is Caplan the kook! No matter what the issue, he will come up with a goofy response in the pretense of "ethics". MSNBC, you can do so much better.
This is just insanity. Making deadly microbes that could kill millions if they get out of the lab or a terrorist gets ahold of them in order to possibly have an approach to save millions. Remember the scientist that was reaching anthrax and then was suspected of sending letters that resulted in the deaths of people. The government needs to come down hard on these morons.
Don't look now, but the government sponsors, cosponsors, or outright employs most of these morons. A big surprise, I know. lol They do quirky crap like this, and probably the public hears of 10% of it, if that. Bradley Manning faces life in prison for givin' the public a little insight into government experiments, lies and coverups. We live in a really screwed up world. His trial will be another coverup though. Governments will one day be their own undoing
Ummmmm, I've got news for BOTH of you: don't look now, but it could be our VERY OWN GOVERNMENT, never mind the terrorists, that could use these microbes to wield power over US.
Right, it's insanity to be one step ahead of the game and gain knowledge and insight as to microbial evolution. Guess what? Killer microbes are studied all the time - from ebola to anthrax. This is nothing new. I myself have donned a full-body biohaz suit to work with some potentially fatal bugs. I'm not dead, nor are any other people on my team, nor was there some large outbreak of disease.
The information gleaned from experiments help epidemiologists prevent spread in the case of local outbreaks. These bugs mutate quickly, naturally, and we must learn as much as possible in order to mitigate that rapid evolution. This research directly leads to the creation of vaccines and other medications. It is the ignorant many (unfortunately) that don't understand what goes on in a lab who claim this type of research is "insanity."
MmmMmmBeer, your argument is a logical one; however, our past history of controlling these experiments is at best poor. I am sure it won't be long before one our more recent creations, like H5N1, will be running loose on the world. Espionage is a very profittable business you know.
Chuck: death is preferable to embaressment or dishonor, even in politics.
Biopreparat probably figured all of this out a long time ago. And they probably did it back when the state of the art was borderline rudimentary. Then again, it's harder than you think to weaponize a virus for long term storage and dispersion, and easier to use other agents. That is, unless they engineer the strain, give it to a martyr and put him on an airplane to Heathrow.
Then again, they only really need to find some old Spanish Flu from 1918 or Plague of Justinian or Plague of Athens, or the vector from any number of historical plagues. If you look into the research, they reconstructed Spanish Flu from bodies buried in the snow. Can't say if the bodies buried from the various plagues would have retained the disease vectors...only one way to find out.
At some point "terrorists" will simply use the rumor of attack to do damage to our economy without even having to lift a finger.
"At some point "terrorists" will simply use the rumor of attack to do damage to our economy without even having to lift a finger." Um....they already do, and have everyday since 911. Did you forget about the different alert codes we live under now? Why the long lines at the airport while we get abused by TSA screeners? The so called "Patriot Act" which illegally infringes on all of our freedoms and privacy? It's all effected our economy to some extent, but it's made the government paranoid, and the citizens its victims
They've stopped damaging our economy-we are now shooting ourselves in the foot. Terrorists not needed anymore.
Humanity has never cured a virus. created antiviruses yes, but cured no, they simply have to run their course. If they want to work on a virus and eventually be able to kill one, work on AIDS. Once they are able to kill that virus it is a simple thing to apply it to others. So mutating a virus for the sole purpose of curing it could be extremely dangerous to all humanity.
whats an antivirus?
and we cured polio--for all intents and purposes, it only exists in labs.
Moreover, if all the vaccine naysayers would wake up, we'd probably completely eliminate it
Not taking issue with your views. Your choice to believe whatever you wish. However polio has not been irradicated through vacinnation. It still exists & in some areas still kills. I know this because one of my kids is a research scientist that often works & gathers samples for study in tropical Asia. He has documented and seen deaths from polio in SE Asia. He has reported his findings to the CDC. Just for your info.
Polio has been virtually eliminated. Most of the places that in the immediate past have still experienced outbreaks have been in areas hard to reach and among people afraid to comply with the requests of the strangers in their midst.
I grew up when Polio was a real danger every summer. My mother would not let my sister and I go to the swimming pool. I knew kids in school who had braces because of polio. There were kids in iron lungs at the hospital because of polio.
I recall standing in line for the polio vaccination in the mid-1950s. Our environment has drastically changed for the better because of the work of Salk and Sabin. People today don't know what they missed. Thank God for the efforts of all in the war to eliminate this scourge.
Sometimes, humanity is its own worse enemy.
It is grossly irresponsible of any group to tinker with the darker aspects of nature.
To create dangerous microbes, in order to study them, demonstrates an arrogance and a lack of responsibility of the highest degree, We barely can cure the common cold yet we aspire to manipulate the microscopic as weapons.
Please stop the madness. Some doors in nature are best left unopened.
Should they? Absolutely not.
Will they? Absolutely.
We are not very far away from being able to model genetic modification of virii and bacteria by way of computer software in order to produce vaccines. Making the real thing is perverse and full of potential doom.
culheath,
Pardon the expression but, "From your mouth to (G/g)od's ear.
Are you old enough to remember the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy?
Sometimes the burden of being human can be unbearable -- we have to know both the weapon and and how to defend against the weapon. Being the (reluctant but still...) current hegemony, the USA has no choice in this matter. It sucks.. big time; but, that's the price we pay for out dominance.
Sir, I think LIFE is "full of potential doom." So to survive, I choose to lead of life of compassion and acceptance. That, and I have my family!
I'm 62, so yes the MAD principle is known and understood by me. However, sometimes it's necessary for the dominant player to use that dominance to alter the structure of the game. The USA has had ample historical opportunities to lead the world to a more principled place. Before 9/11 hysteria crippled our perspectives, we had a policy of of never being the first to attack another nation, at least that was our public concept of ourselves. The fear and hype driven assault on Iraq changed that.
It seems stupid to me to produce genetically engineered virii on the basis of some MAD principle, because in reality it is even less controllable than nukes and much more subject to accident. Imagine diseases being tailored to specific genotypes (race)... would that be a legitimate thing to pursue if we knew others were thinking of doing it? Where do you draw the line?
culheath,
Oh how I wish I (and I imagine you wish) I could be... perfect.... UUHHH. "Principled" is a cultural construct. Unlike Mediterranean and Western European States we (USA) do not have millennia of historical conflict.
And I think you feel that angst, too. And YES the USA "has had ample historical opportunities to lead the world to a more principled place."
USA history: at every turn the USA (before WWII) chose isolationism.
I hear that. And yes, "principled" is a cultural construct, but culture is a very real extension of what we as humans produce as part of our existence which shapes our environment for good or ill. When we have evolved to a place where nearly anything we can imagine is do-able, there is a survival requirement I think that arises which begs some "wisdom" to be selective about which paths we follow or not, not just as individuals, but as a collective.
My thoughts are that computer modeling of molecular (DNA) manipulation of virii and bacteria is a much safer way approach the "readiness" issue you seem to be raising than to trust the quarantine technologies used presently to isolate whatever dangerous pathogens are being developed. Part of that fear is that money and power talks.
Call me paranoid, but I simply do not trust the science to be capable of preventing such inventions from escaping into the wild. And we mustn't forget the principle of "unintended consequences", which has already been shown with genetically altered crops and has resulted in very real damage.
culheath,
100% with you brother. I, too, do not trust corporate "science." (I'm a PhD so I trust "academic" science... sorry. Sue me!)
"Figures lie and liars figure."
So...back to your comment: "we mustn't forget the principle of "unintended consequences" is dead on. Whether science, fiscal policy, foreign policy, etc. there are always unintended consequences.
Happy New Year.
Cool...back atcha.
or one mistake...After all even PhD are human. One natural rule we can't get away from: The Earth will always reclaim it self. Its only a matter of time before a virus of some sort gets out that stumps science. Humans are the out break. The only question remains.. When will mother nature thin us out?
I try not to imagine that I am somehow separate from mother nature.
As a scientist you fight mother nature. lol i do thank you for your work without people with PhD and scientist half of us or more would be long dead....So i guess it's a good thing science plays around with these viruses. I'm just saying the out break of humans in the past say 50 years or so will have an effect if it hasn't already on new viruses and mutation.
A deadly virus? Perhaps. But a kerfuffle, never! Kerfuffles should never be created in the laboratory let alone unleased on humanity. OCCUPY THE LABORATORIES. STOP THE KERFUFFLES!
NEVER cross the streams of 2 kerfuffles.
One day the human race will exterminate itself and all the other (non-scavenger) species on the earth will breathe a collective sigh of relief.
Duh? We wanted to see if the virus could mutate? Stupid is as stupid does.
There's got to be more to this than is being revealed. Another 911 in the making? Where's rumsfield and cheney?
Silly, they were replaced by Obama and Biden...
Man is a natural part of nature. Those that spout off about how "man shouldn't do things because it is not natural" baffle me.
Of course we should continue to explore nature around us. Things got here naturally and have been here for a long time, we just finally realized it in its current form.
Nature evolves, those that don't go the way of dinosaurs. I choose to deal with what we have today and to study it, research it, understand it and hopefully make things better for all. Are all changes better, probably not? But to do nothing will not work.
Yes of course they should create deadly viruses. This world needs more deadly things in it. Infact this world needs a massive cleaning of humanity they need to double there efforts and get on making these deadly viruses.
The planet simply can not hold out much longer.
The answer to the author of this article's question is NO, NO, and then NO.
One of the labs I work with studies cone snails (most poisonous animal on the planet). The lab members who work directly with the snails actually have to register with the FBI and are kept on a no fly list because of their work. Think of a bad "Snails on a Plane" movie. :-)
But seriously, their work is important because some of the derivatives from the snail toxin are actually effective in regulating heartbeat, calming depression, and as non-addictive pain killers. It's really amazing what can be derived rom what appear on the surface to only be hyper-deadly toxins. Of course studying the deadly extremes is necessary.
agreed
another example is botox (not the cosmetic applications, but the actual medical uses)
I see an important benefit of this study as encouraging more people to get vaccinated with the seasonal flu vaccine, which provides immunity against H1N1
But im sure the vaccine conspiracy theorists will still find a reason not to support it
I guess you could say the same thing about digitalis, which is derived from the Foxglove plant, which can be very deadly if even nibbled on.
Brilliant. Instead of spending time actually developing techniques against viruses, let's just make them deadlier. What could possibly go wrong?
Whether you are for or against creating deadly viruses is totally irrelevant today.
Pandora's box was opened back in the 1930's with the development, build and eventual use of the nuclear bomb.
Deadly viruses were inevitable to come out, especially after the genome program was completed. I wouldn't be surprise to find out that part of the decision and incentives for the genome program would be to develop biological weapons. But don't expect those memos to be made public anytime soon.
Pandora's box is open and no one can close it anymore. And rest assure that nuclear and biological weapons will not be the only stuff to come out. There are far more lethal evils lurking in our scientific investigations and experiments that haven't hit home yet.
So the debate is not whether to create or not any more of these evil potions but how to deal with their handling and use. Part of the process is to deal with the real threats that can use these weapons for evil intentions, the extermination of the human evil.
Pandora's box is open so clean up your society before the real bad stuff come out.
Happy New Year.
If "our" scientists want to do this and "we" approve, then let's not raise "our" voices in righteous indignation and insist that "their" scientists, whose motives "we" mistrust, shouldn't be allowed to do it, too. Also, does anyone think these viruses will be destroyed despite any and all the pledges to do so? Weren't smallpox viruses preserved in case of "military necessity"? Actually they will be destroyed, but not a minute sooner than the "second coming"!
No, no and NO.
Ridiculous, pointless question - which is bound to get 95% voting "no".
Follow along kiddies... if you ask the question "should scientists create deadly viruses", then you are in effect saying, "scientists have the ABILITY to create deadly viruses". You still with me? OK, if scientists CAN bio-engineer deadly viruses (and we KNOW they can), then SOME scientists WILL do it, at some point, somewhere in the world. It doesn't matter how we we "vote" or even what laws are passed. This being the fact, I'd rather have some scientists with some sort of conscience and integrity doing this research and working on vaccines and other counter-measures to new viruses. If you wouldn't, you're extremely naive.
Next poll question: Should scientists unleash the power of the atom upon the world?
Oh.... wait....
Study the diseases in theoretical situations, by all means, but to actually create them? Then to publish the findings for every terroristic nation out there to use it against it? That is worse than irresponsible, it is downright criminal! Of course, this could be just another way for Big Pharma to force all people to get yet ANOTHER vaccination, at astronomical prices. The more diseases they create, the more we have to combat.
"The only way to anticipate and respond to changes in nature that convert a relatively harmless strain of flu to a pandemic killer or to figure out ways to deal with horrors like flesh eating bacteria is to create and study them."....Let's see, following this logic, the only way we can anticipate and respond to a meteor striking the earth is to crash one into the Earth and study it. And the only way we can anticipate and respond to a tsunami created by nature is to make one and flood Japan. Who the hell gave you a degree in ethics?
Yes...
As I see it, it certainly makes sense to study likely *natural* modifications to viruses and bacteria, so as to be prepared. It may or may not make sense to study likely *artificial* modifications, as I see it there are merits and demerits.
Studying these artificial modifications gets you ready for possible attacks by making those artificial viruses and studying them. Also the process of making them gives you working insight into how they are made. This is much like in law enforcement where law enforcement frequently learns how to commit the crimes they are trying to stop in order to better understand how to stop them, this gives our scientists expertise in the subject so we have people to turn to if an outbreak occurs.
This expertise can be used for protection, but it can also be used for malice. Those who are experts in making viruses become a liability for making them. In some cases the scientist may act in accordance with their own will. They also may not even have any intention of making them, but if extreme groups are aware of who they are they may try to coerce these scientists in various ways (bribery, extortion, torture, blackmail, etc).
Now, you also aren’t going to be able to make the knowledge impossible to acquire, these things have a way of leaking, particularly if groups catch wind of something that particularly strikes their fancy. However, making it more difficult to acquire will tend to decrease the rate of which this dangerous know how is present in the world populace, (skipping ahead a bit) which should amount to less instances of malicious abuse, although it is doubtful that it can be avoided as long as long as the know how exists. Also, the know how will continue to spread so long as their is sufficient drive to have it. So as long as the will to harm in mass remains, the desire to find new ways to harm in mass remains, and the liability for means such as biological terrorism remain.
Any thing these so-called scientist invent which causes harm should be looked at as "terrorism" regardless of what country they're from. The US, EU, UN, Vatican, and MECCA are not immuned from the crimes they commit. God will repay.
Why, if we're going to create deadly viruses and toxins, don't we deploy them? Sooner or later, some terrorist cell will get hold of them, and then scientists will have job security trying to figure out how to stop them.
Of course they should create deadly viruses; that way they can unleash them on mankind and make the drug makers rich finding antidotes for them