Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat

[Bob's World]

Newsflash. Homo sapiens is a part of nature. So the question is which do you prefer? A world where mankind isn't intelligent enough to contemplate, execute and study--under controlled conditions--evolutionary pathways of pathology or a world where we just stumble across it? 1918 wasn't a fun year.

Research is important. No argument, but 1918 was most likely far smaller than a similar event that is apt to happen in our lifetime. Bringing a super-virus into a world with no immunity to the same is not science, it is opening Pandora's box.

I've seen estimates that as high as 90% of the North American populace were killed in pandemics from the time Columbus landed in the Caribbean and when the first settlers arrived in Virginia. They thought they had found a wilderness, but had in fact arrived in a ghost town.

I am sure the scientists who create the next virus to have such an effect will rationalize how their work was to advance science as you describe, and it was only some accident or intentional abuse of their work that led to the following disaster. Some things are best left uninvented.

[Presley Cannady]

Research is important. No argument, but 1918 was most likely far smaller than a similar event that is apt to happen in our lifetime.

About ten times smaller than the number tossed around in advanced of publication.

Bringing a super-virus into a world with no immunity to the same is not science, it is opening Pandora's box.

Couple of points:

1. There is no such thing as a super virus.
2. Discovery in virology is serendipitous; there is presently no means to plan treatment until a pathogen emerges.
3. There is no guarantee that H5N1 wouldn't evolve into the discovered strain.

Pandora's box was open the moment organic replicators appeared on this planet, and what was let loose has likely caused several mass extinctions throughout geological time.

I am sure the scientists who create the next virus to have such an effect will rationalize how their work was to advance science as you describe...

Nothing so cliche. Their work advances the cause of identifying and mitigating existential threats to the survival of mankind.

[AmericanPride]

The obvious middle ground is to allow publication under controlled conditions; i.e. declaring the research results a state secret and managing access.

[Presley Cannady]

The obvious middle ground is to allow publication under controlled conditions; i.e. declaring the research results a state secret and managing access.

Undoubtably, insofar as you can lay hands on the researchers and their materials.

[AmericanPride]

Undoubtably, insofar as you can lay hands on the researchers and their materials.

That's the easy part. Scare the public. Enact a few laws. Make a few arrests to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue if necessary. I'm not familiar with the Netherlands' national security laws, so its only speculation, assuming that national security is the priority, as opposed to research, freedom of speech, etc.

[davidbfpo]

Looks like there's been an intervention. First, headlined 'Bird flu: Research row as US raises terror fears' and opens with:

The authors of two controversial bird flu studies have reportedly agreed to a US request to redact key details after a government advisory panel suggested the data could be used by terrorists.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16279365

Secondly, headlined 'When should science be censored?', a more reflective article, which includes both sides arguments; although my eye caught this snippet:

building ethics into the work of scientists, and relying on journal editors to exercise caution.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16275946

[AmericanPride]

Looks like there's been an intervention. First, headlined 'Bird flu: Research row as US raises terror fears' and opens with:

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16279365

Secondly, headlined 'When should science be censored?', a more reflective article, which includes both sides arguments; although my eye caught this snippet:

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16275946

Is anyone genuinely surprised? It makes me wonder what incentives were provided to encourage their decision for self-censorship.