12 ms·

Man-made super flu could kill half of humanity

272 points by munin 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
heelhook 15y ago
Maybe I'm being naive, but this sounds a lot like critical software that, if compromised, could be a danger for our society. You would definitely want that piece of software to remain as secure as possible: open source is definitely the way to go!
- divtxt 15y ago
  Can't tell if humour, stupidity or trolling. Upvoted! :)
- scythe 15y ago
  For a more apt analogy, the human immune system is like an old piece of critical software that society depends on, and H5N1 represents a piece of shellcode that exploits a serious flaw in the system which is currently a 0day. It allows an attacker to remotely disable a large number of machines, err, people. There is currently no patch -- vaccine -- available to fix the hole. The relevant buzzword is full disclosure. Even I'm not sure if you can take that so far, but I'm pretty sure that if this is released, nobody ever gets to complain about someone publishing an exploit for their personal project, because that's nothing in comparison.
nickpinkston 15y ago
I feel like this is the ultimate "money where your mouth is" question for the "pre-publish-the-exploit" hackers. Would they release this? I'm not sure we shouldn't, but it's pretty crazy that we've made this. Hell, I'm not so sure that any virologist or two worth their salt might not be able to do the same. Modified-Nature you scary!
prophetjohn 15y ago
I think there's more to gain than lose by publishing these results. First of all, the research states that ~50% of people infected with the virus would die, not that humanity would be reduced by 50%, necessarily. It's unclear if this is an implication and I think, as a result, it's a bit of a misleading title. Also, say the title is not misleading and they publish the results and some crazy dictator gets his hands on it. First, he has to be crazy enough to want to develop a virus that has a 50% chance of killing him. Then he has to find scientists that are willing to develop the virus that has a 50% chance of killing them and their family and friends, etc. The likelihood of all these things transpiring seems relatively low. On the other hand, this research seems to indicate that it's not wholly unlikely that this kind of virus mutation could transpire organically, in which case this "recipe" being public knowledge would be instrumental in fighting the disease. Even if it doesn't arise organically (crazy terrorist convinces crazy scientists) the public knowledge of it would still reduce the 50% death rate. And I also feel that the kind of sentiments that lead people to claim that this research should never have been performed in the first place are misguided. This kind of tinkering and hacking around is likely what would lead to the next big cure, etc. Never stop scientists from learning new things.
- rdtsc 15y ago
  > it's not wholly unlikely that this kind of virus mutation could transpire organically ... Interestingly that might give some crazy dictator or lone crazy scientist an incentive to perhaps develop and release it in some particular region of the world. If it looks like a natural mutation then it will be harder to find the culprit.
  - prophetjohn 15y ago
    I guess it depends on if the 50% of humanity claim is accurate and then whether or not it's an evenly distributed 50%. If it's just one half of the world, then this might be feasible, but if every person has a 50% chance of dying from this illness, then the dictator and his scientists would have to be crazy enough to put themselves at a 50% risk of death.
    - 15y ago
papa_bear 15y ago
Maybe a requisite for researching and developing dangerous diseases should be that you make the vaccine immediately after (or before, if possible).
OoTheNigerian 15y ago
Unfortunately, if the virus has already been created, the antidote has to be found ASAP. For this to happen, a large number of scientists have to know how to make it first before knowing how to destroy it. How you decide who should have access to this information is now the problem. If they are not careful, the censoring could piss of some crazy scientist who would now announce such discoveries with a blogpost and allow anyone have access to it than through a sort of regulated process that would at least give the 'right people' a lead on the info; so they can start working on an anti-dote before is gets to the mass market. As to what kind of research should be allowed, I have no comment.
- lukifer 15y ago
  There is an interesting short story called "Talking To God" [1], which postulates that sentient species only survive if every individual has the ability to destroy the entire world, but chooses not to. Our capacity for mass destruction is only going to get worse. I think it's far more efficacious to look toward managing that reality than to try to postpone or prevent it. [1] http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal
  - richardw 15y ago
    If so, we may be doomed. Assume there is a percentage of people who would use that ability. We need to either destroy them, or transform them. Assume they were 'fixed', our next problem would be fixing those who might temporarily be inclined to destroy the world, for example a jilted lover or anyone who is depressed and angry enough due to temporary circumstance. We then have to either ensure those circumstances never occur, or 'fix' those people. That likely covers most people, given an infinite amount of possible situations. Can't kill everybody, and 'fixing' them likely means we lose too much of what makes us human to be worth it. I vote for taking it out of the hands of people and debugging Skynet for longer than they did in the movie. Then stop competing and enjoy the flowers.
    - sneak 15y ago
      > I vote for taking it out of the hands of people and debugging Skynet for longer than they did in the movie. Then stop competing and enjoy the flowers. Watch "Colossus: The Forbin Project".
oasisbob 15y ago
I found this article on the same topic more informative and less sensational: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21195-bioterror-fears-could-block-crucial-flu-research.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21195-bioterror-fears-...
- cr4zy 15y ago
  This has more info also, with moderate sensationalism: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/scientists-brace-for-media-storm.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/scientists...
cr4zy 15y ago
It seems like the United States should invest in a dream team, atom bomb, go to the moon type of operation to deal with this. It's hard to see why this information even got out in the first place.
markazevedo 15y ago
Any reason why we can't cripple the virus and start testing vaccines now? Publish it and immunize against it.
- adrianN 15y ago
  Why would you want to spend lots of of money on developing a vaccine against a virus that only exists in a lab?
- ck2 15y ago
  We cannot even stop or accurately predict annual variations in common flu. How would we stop all the permutations of this?
- jballanc 15y ago
  The trouble is not making the vaccine. As soon as you have the virus you can make the vaccine. The trouble is that we currently lack the capacity to rapidly produce large quantities of the vaccine. Why do we lack the capacity? Because there's no profit in making flu vaccines! Gotta love capitalism, eh?
  - shin_lao 15y ago
    no profit in making flu vaccines? please do some research.
    - jballanc 15y ago
      Here is some of the evidence I'm going off of: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-10-19-flu-leinwand-questions_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-10-19-flu-leinwand-... Edit: I did find this article which mentions new vaccines being more profitable (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090427_386206.htm http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc200...), so perhaps the market is not as bleak as I had thought. Still, I worry about things as vital as vaccine and antibiotic manufacture being left to the whims of the market (new antibiotics are, last I checked, still not profitable).
jballanc 15y ago
Reading some of the comments, I am reminded of the Greek concept of hubris... In particular, it is funny how programmers, who make their living by controlling complicated systems, jump to the conclusion that every complicated system is trivially subject to human control. I had a professor once put it this way: disease is just that -- a dis-ease. The first thing you have to understand is that no organism lives in a biological vacuum. Every organisms interacts with other organisms. When first two organisms meet, the interaction is usually rather messy. One or the other or both die in great numbers. Gradually, they make adjustments and the deaths decrease. One becomes a disease or parasite of the other. Eventually, the two organisms will reach a détente and begin living as symbionts. Given enough time, the distinction between the two may even vanish (see: endosymbiont hypothesis). The flu virus is, in particular, a rather striking study of this process. Consider the vast majority of fowl who carry the virus asymptomatically. For them, flu is not a disease, but rather a simple hitch-hiker. For humans, you can predict the severity of a flu outbreak based on how well adjusted the virus is to humans. The more avian characteristics it has, the worse the symptoms and mortality are likely to be. At the same time, an ill adjusted virus is much less likely to spread. One other thing to consider is that the flu virus itself does not exist in isolation from itself. The Spanish flu of 1918 is an interesting case in this respect. It was, as I alluded to before, ill adjusted to human hosts. At the same time, it was particularly communicable; something of an oddity for a flu with so many avian characteristics. It did kill a large number of people, but within a year or two the major damage had been done and the pandemic was over. Why? Well, certainly a large portion of the human population that had become exposed but had not died were now immune. More importantly, though, the strain mutated and became better adjusted to human hosts. This strain, H1N1, then became the predominant form of the "seasonal flu". It is likely that you have become infected by a descendent of this very strain, probably many times over. I would not fear this virus for the same reason that I do not fear Ebola or Marburg virus. Viruses that kill quickly and efficiently do not spread as well as those that cause some disease but allow their host to continue functioning more or less normally (all the while exposing many more to the virus). Of course, this is little comfort to the dead, and there will always be those who die from any outbreak (just go look at the annual death toll from "seasonal flu"). It is far, far from a reason to start predicting the end of humanity. One final note on the bioweapon/bioterror angle: if you follow the thinking of the people that actually contemplate the use of bioweapons, you'll find that bioweapons are only ever considered as denial-of-area or knock-down agents. That is, you can use a bioweapon to prevent your enemy from gaining or holding a strategic position. What you don't find is anyone proposing to use a bioweapon as a coup de grace. Those that study these things understand that any biological agent has an in-built time limit on its effectiveness. Edit: I just realized I should mention that while I don't appreciate the sensationalism espoused by the scientific press, H5N1 is a very real, very troubling threat. It won't wipe out the human race, but it does have a good chance of setting humanity back a decade or two (not from disease, but primarily from the knock-on effects of people reacting to the disease, halting productive work and worldwide travel). In my mind, though, this is all the more reason to publish this research and, while we're at it, pour some more money into the worldwide flu monitoring network.
skrebbel 15y ago
I don't get how a US body has to decide whether Dutch and Japanese research papers are allowed to be published.
- jballanc 15y ago
  Science is an American publication. If this were submitted to Nature, I suspect we'd be hearing about some British committee fretting over this...or perhaps not since Americans seem particularly prone to sensationalism.
  - skrebbel 15y ago
    Ahh right. That makes sense. That said, I can't see Science (the magazine) being mentioned in the article anywhere - unless the "Science" in "Science Insider" and "US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity" refers to the magazine.
    - jballanc 15y ago
      Yes, "Science Insider" is Science's online, rapid publication site for science policy: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/ http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/ .
ck2 15y ago
Yeah let's keep spending money on the TSA groping everyone, terrorists would never just spread a super-flu instead. Ironically the TSA could be the ones to spread a virus from person to person because I am sure they do not change gloves on every grope?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
erikstarck 15y ago
Before 20th century: man can destroy man. 20th century: mankind can destroy mankind. 21st century: man can destroy mankind. Edit: let me just add that I'm extremely positive about the future, it's just that there are certain challenges that we as a society must deal with. The ability for one man or a small group of men to more or less wipe out the human race will be in our reach within perhaps just a few years. We can deal with this by different control mechanisms in our society. I'm a firm believer in the transparent society but the way things are going right now we seem to be moving towards a government controlled big brother society. Is that the way we want it? Now is the time to discuss these issues if we want to change route.
- brador 15y ago
  22nd century: mankind can destroy man.
- itmag 15y ago
  Check into the concepts of super empowerment, systems disruption and 5GW (as popularized on John Robb's Global Guerillas blog). http://dreaming5gw.com/5gw_lexicon/s/super-empowered-individuals.php http://dreaming5gw.com/5gw_lexicon/s/super-empowered-individ... http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/ http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/ Kul att se dig hær førresten :)
- dcx 15y ago
  Isn't this the same problem as nuclear knowledge regulation though? We definitely need some controls here, but the government doesn't need to control everything big brother style. Just a few specific items within a few domains of knowledge. I'm not a big fan of government secrecy either but if the choice is between that and self-extinction, well...! Our Stone Age circumstances have left us with some pretty predatorial instincts and drives. It makes sense to put in safeguards to protect us from our own giant technological reach. It gives us time to let our social/cultural immune systems catch up. And these probably don't have to be permanent - I'm not sure, but it does feel like we're moving towards greater freedom over time. Look at the chemicals you can buy in any hardware store or pharmacy today, and the instruction guides freely available on the internet. Individuals can already cause asymmetrically large harm but generally don't, because we're already fairly self-domesticated. (Credit to Simon of Space for this line of thought - http://cheeseburgerbrown.com/stories/Simon_of_Space/ http://cheeseburgerbrown.com/stories/Simon_of_Space/)
Apocryphon 15y ago
This story is from RT, or Russia Today. It's a news network that's been known to run sensationalist stories.
corroded 15y ago
Let's all hope Umbrella Corporation doesn't get a hold of this...
Zash 15y ago
What could possibly go wrong?
billpatrianakos 15y ago
First off, way to sensationalize. Due to the writing style and title I don't think this should be e number one story right now. But anyway, published or not "bio terrorists" are not the kind of people the article wants you to picture. The only likely way such an attack could be carried out would be with massive support of some unfriendly government. There's no bio-weapon Al Quaeda working group or anything like that and if there were the worst they could do is try to infect us by releasing some infected animal loose somewhere in the hopes it would infect someone. I wish this post didn't have "fluff piece" written all over it and focused in a far more detailed way about the merits of publishing scientific studies that could be used for nefarious purposes. Unfortunately, the post gives us so little facts on that subject that none of us could really build a good argument for or against it without doing a fair amount of research first or resorting to uneducated guesses and opinions. It's too bad, really.
- DanBC 15y ago
  > There's no bio-weapon Al Quaeda working group or anything like that You're aware that Aum Shinrikyo released aerosolised anthrax spores for a week in Japan before they stopped, and that it's only because they used the wrong anthrax that there wasn't widespread infection? That was in 1993; I imagine it's technologically much easier and cheaper to do it now, but that there are tighter controls over chemicals etc. The article is sensationalist. Bio-terrorists don't need to kill anyone, they just need to cause economic harm. They can do this by releasing blue-tongue or foot&mouth or whatever in a few farms. That costs billions and long lasting damage. (http://www.fmd.brass.cf.ac.uk/ http://www.fmd.brass.cf.ac.uk/)
  - learc83 15y ago
    Yeah, they released the wrong Anthrax spores. An amateur move, they weren't a hard core group of bioengineers--just some guys who happened to get hold of some anthrax spores. The issue here is creating this strain, sure some crazy death cult would use a weaponized flu, but the OP is arguing they wouldn't be able to create it in the first place.
    - 15y ago
DaveChild 15y ago
Captain Trips.
- DaveChild 15y ago
  No fans of The Stand here? :)
nussbi 15y ago
whether or not the they publish this information - if it exists indeed - will it really matter? I mean; why bother with a future that does not exist yet? If it gets out and holds to be genuine information then some fascist group (sect, terrorists, whoever) develops it and releases it into the wild... What will happen? WE DON'T KNOW. It could kill half of humanity but also only a few people, we can't say. All we know for sure is that there may be hugely harmful virus data in some lab. That's all there is to say, future will tell what's gonna happen. Why bother with a future we can't predict?
tokenadult 15y ago
Thanks to the commenters who pointed to more balanced news stories about this line of research. Some of the other comments here mention the difficulty in developing strain-specific flu vaccines. That difficulty is why research on universal flu vaccines http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jul2010/niaid-15.htm http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jul2010/niaid-15.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/06/flu-universal-vaccine-test-success http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/06/flu-universal-... is going on in multiple countries, with some major funding support. Antiviral medicines that treat cases of the flu tend to be in short supply in every flu season, but some governments have taken care to stockpile those in ways that ensure that essential services would go on in those countries even during a severe flu pandemic. Further research on broad-spectrum flu vaccines, including a possible universal vaccine, is warranted to prevent natural strains of the flu and is ongoing. Further research, development, and production of antiviral medicines to treat people who catch the flu is also warranted and ongoing. A new pandemic, from whatever source, would be extremely disruptive, but as an astute previous comment pointed out, people can do things like self-quarantine, and such simple forms of self-protection were very effective in stopping the SARS epidemic in 2003. Predicting the death of half of humankind based the preliminary finding reported in the rather sensational story submitted here is not a prediction I believe or worry about.
bitwize 15y ago
But can it spread to Madagascar?
mootothemax 15y ago
After 10 generations, the virus had mutated to become airborne Can someone more qualified than me comment on this? I was under the impression that this is as ridiculous as saying that you started out with dogs and ended up with cats 10 generations later. That viruses belong to specific families, and those families include how they're transmitted. My knowledge of this field is extremely limited; can someone please clear up my confusion? :)
- jballanc 15y ago
  In fact you are more or less correct. It is as if they put in dogs and got out cats. That's just how Influenza works. It mutates, adapts, and evolves extremely rapidly. This is why it never has been, and likely never will be, eradicated (notice that those "in the know" don't even talk about Influenza eradication in passing).
kunle 15y ago
Just seems like playing with fire. I get the whole idea of helping humanity cope with an epidemic, but not clear why they didnt just do THAT research instead.
- laughinghan 15y ago
  It's hard to figure out how to put out fires based on news reports of what fires are like. At some point you just have to set fire to something in a laboratory and see if you can actually put it out. It helps that just like it's not actually possible to start a fire that would actually incinerate half the globe, it's not actually possible to create a virus that would wipe out half of humanity. The article is wrong and sensationalist.
marze 15y ago
How stupid.
httpitis 15y ago
Why would anyone even begin to think about developing this sort of thing?
frisco 15y ago
According to Wikipedia, Erasmus Medical Center (or, for that matter, all of Rotterdam) only has labs rated up to Biosafety Level 3. This sounds like it should be the definition of BSL4. I wonder whether the research was conducted elsewhere, Wikipedia is wrong, or if they're really doing this in a BSL2 or BSL3 lab.
jarin 15y ago
To me, the scariest thing (which seems to be overlooked) is that this particular strain of Avian Flu is only 5 mutations away from the Avian Flu in the wild. While we're fretting about whether this will get out of a lab, it's not entirely unlikely that a similar strain will evolve in the wild (now you know why they burned all those chickens in China). Edit: "A genetic study showed that the new, dangerous strain had only five mutations compared to the original one, and all of them were earlier seen in the natural environment – just not all at once."
dools 15y ago
The ethical dilemma is interesting and, I think, parallels the "security through obscurity" approach to software security. If the findings are published, the scientific community at large can work to fight a pandemic which may happen anyway, but at the same time may decrease the time until a pandemic occurs by giving information to those who would willingly produce it for their personal gain.
joeycfan 15y ago
What, only half? What am I paying you people for? Back to the lab! Where's my Captain Trips?
vl 15y ago
Is it time to stockpile Tamiflu again? But, seriously, isn't it obvious that publication of the fact that this research is blocked is already enough for terrorists? From the preliminary report they already have an outline of what needs to be done, they know where to go and who to ask or what to steal if they can't do it themselves.

272 points by munin 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

Maybe I'm being naive, but this sounds a lot like critical software that, if compromised, could be a danger for our society. You would definitely want that piece of software to remain as secure as possible: open source is definitely the way to go!

divtxt 15y ago
Can't tell if humour, stupidity or trolling. Upvoted! :)
scythe 15y ago
For a more apt analogy, the human immune system is like an old piece of critical software that society depends on, and H5N1 represents a piece of shellcode that exploits a serious flaw in the system which is currently a 0day. It allows an attacker to remotely disable a large number of machines, err, people. There is currently no patch -- vaccine -- available to fix the hole. The relevant buzzword is full disclosure. Even I'm not sure if you can take that so far, but I'm pretty sure that if this is released, nobody ever gets to complain about someone publishing an exploit for their personal project, because that's nothing in comparison.

nickpinkston 15y ago

I feel like this is the ultimate "money where your mouth is" question for the "pre-publish-the-exploit" hackers. Would they release this? I'm not sure we shouldn't, but it's pretty crazy that we've made this. Hell, I'm not so sure that any virologist or two worth their salt might not be able to do the same. Modified-Nature you scary!

prophetjohn 15y ago

I think there's more to gain than lose by publishing these results. First of all, the research states that ~50% of people infected with the virus would die, not that humanity would be reduced by 50%, necessarily. It's unclear if this is an implication and I think, as a result, it's a bit of a misleading title. Also, say the title is not misleading and they publish the results and some crazy dictator gets his hands on it. First, he has to be crazy enough to want to develop a virus that has a 50% chance of killing him. Then he has to find scientists that are willing to develop the virus that has a 50% chance of killing them and their family and friends, etc. The likelihood of all these things transpiring seems relatively low. On the other hand, this research seems to indicate that it's not wholly unlikely that this kind of virus mutation could transpire organically, in which case this "recipe" being public knowledge would be instrumental in fighting the disease. Even if it doesn't arise organically (crazy terrorist convinces crazy scientists) the public knowledge of it would still reduce the 50% death rate. And I also feel that the kind of sentiments that lead people to claim that this research should never have been performed in the first place are misguided. This kind of tinkering and hacking around is likely what would lead to the next big cure, etc. Never stop scientists from learning new things.

rdtsc 15y ago
> it's not wholly unlikely that this kind of virus mutation could transpire organically ... Interestingly that might give some crazy dictator or lone crazy scientist an incentive to perhaps develop and release it in some particular region of the world. If it looks like a natural mutation then it will be harder to find the culprit.
- prophetjohn 15y ago
  I guess it depends on if the 50% of humanity claim is accurate and then whether or not it's an evenly distributed 50%. If it's just one half of the world, then this might be feasible, but if every person has a 50% chance of dying from this illness, then the dictator and his scientists would have to be crazy enough to put themselves at a 50% risk of death.
  - 15y ago

papa_bear 15y ago

Maybe a requisite for researching and developing dangerous diseases should be that you make the vaccine immediately after (or before, if possible).

OoTheNigerian 15y ago

Unfortunately, if the virus has already been created, the antidote has to be found ASAP. For this to happen, a large number of scientists have to know how to make it first before knowing how to destroy it. How you decide who should have access to this information is now the problem. If they are not careful, the censoring could piss of some crazy scientist who would now announce such discoveries with a blogpost and allow anyone have access to it than through a sort of regulated process that would at least give the 'right people' a lead on the info; so they can start working on an anti-dote before is gets to the mass market. As to what kind of research should be allowed, I have no comment.

lukifer 15y ago
There is an interesting short story called "Talking To God" [1], which postulates that sentient species only survive if every individual has the ability to destroy the entire world, but chooses not to. Our capacity for mass destruction is only going to get worse. I think it's far more efficacious to look toward managing that reality than to try to postpone or prevent it. [1] http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal
- richardw 15y ago
  If so, we may be doomed. Assume there is a percentage of people who would use that ability. We need to either destroy them, or transform them. Assume they were 'fixed', our next problem would be fixing those who might temporarily be inclined to destroy the world, for example a jilted lover or anyone who is depressed and angry enough due to temporary circumstance. We then have to either ensure those circumstances never occur, or 'fix' those people. That likely covers most people, given an infinite amount of possible situations. Can't kill everybody, and 'fixing' them likely means we lose too much of what makes us human to be worth it. I vote for taking it out of the hands of people and debugging Skynet for longer than they did in the movie. Then stop competing and enjoy the flowers.
  - sneak 15y ago
    > I vote for taking it out of the hands of people and debugging Skynet for longer than they did in the movie. Then stop competing and enjoy the flowers. Watch "Colossus: The Forbin Project".

oasisbob 15y ago

I found this article on the same topic more informative and less sensational: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21195-bioterror-fears-could-block-crucial-flu-research.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21195-bioterror-fears-...

cr4zy 15y ago
This has more info also, with moderate sensationalism: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/scientists-brace-for-media-storm.html http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/11/scientists...

cr4zy 15y ago

It seems like the United States should invest in a dream team, atom bomb, go to the moon type of operation to deal with this. It's hard to see why this information even got out in the first place.

markazevedo 15y ago

Any reason why we can't cripple the virus and start testing vaccines now? Publish it and immunize against it.

adrianN 15y ago
Why would you want to spend lots of of money on developing a vaccine against a virus that only exists in a lab?
ck2 15y ago
We cannot even stop or accurately predict annual variations in common flu. How would we stop all the permutations of this?
jballanc 15y ago
The trouble is not making the vaccine. As soon as you have the virus you can make the vaccine. The trouble is that we currently lack the capacity to rapidly produce large quantities of the vaccine. Why do we lack the capacity? Because there's no profit in making flu vaccines! Gotta love capitalism, eh?
- shin_lao 15y ago
  no profit in making flu vaccines? please do some research.
  - jballanc 15y ago
    Here is some of the evidence I'm going off of: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-10-19-flu-leinwand-questions_x.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-10-19-flu-leinwand-... Edit: I did find this article which mentions new vaccines being more profitable (http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090427_386206.htm http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc200...), so perhaps the market is not as bleak as I had thought. Still, I worry about things as vital as vaccine and antibiotic manufacture being left to the whims of the market (new antibiotics are, last I checked, still not profitable).

jballanc 15y ago

Reading some of the comments, I am reminded of the Greek concept of hubris... In particular, it is funny how programmers, who make their living by controlling complicated systems, jump to the conclusion that every complicated system is trivially subject to human control. I had a professor once put it this way: disease is just that -- a dis-ease. The first thing you have to understand is that no organism lives in a biological vacuum. Every organisms interacts with other organisms. When first two organisms meet, the interaction is usually rather messy. One or the other or both die in great numbers. Gradually, they make adjustments and the deaths decrease. One becomes a disease or parasite of the other. Eventually, the two organisms will reach a détente and begin living as symbionts. Given enough time, the distinction between the two may even vanish (see: endosymbiont hypothesis). The flu virus is, in particular, a rather striking study of this process. Consider the vast majority of fowl who carry the virus asymptomatically. For them, flu is not a disease, but rather a simple hitch-hiker. For humans, you can predict the severity of a flu outbreak based on how well adjusted the virus is to humans. The more avian characteristics it has, the worse the symptoms and mortality are likely to be. At the same time, an ill adjusted virus is much less likely to spread. One other thing to consider is that the flu virus itself does not exist in isolation from itself. The Spanish flu of 1918 is an interesting case in this respect. It was, as I alluded to before, ill adjusted to human hosts. At the same time, it was particularly communicable; something of an oddity for a flu with so many avian characteristics. It did kill a large number of people, but within a year or two the major damage had been done and the pandemic was over. Why? Well, certainly a large portion of the human population that had become exposed but had not died were now immune. More importantly, though, the strain mutated and became better adjusted to human hosts. This strain, H1N1, then became the predominant form of the "seasonal flu". It is likely that you have become infected by a descendent of this very strain, probably many times over. I would not fear this virus for the same reason that I do not fear Ebola or Marburg virus. Viruses that kill quickly and efficiently do not spread as well as those that cause some disease but allow their host to continue functioning more or less normally (all the while exposing many more to the virus). Of course, this is little comfort to the dead, and there will always be those who die from any outbreak (just go look at the annual death toll from "seasonal flu"). It is far, far from a reason to start predicting the end of humanity. One final note on the bioweapon/bioterror angle: if you follow the thinking of the people that actually contemplate the use of bioweapons, you'll find that bioweapons are only ever considered as denial-of-area or knock-down agents. That is, you can use a bioweapon to prevent your enemy from gaining or holding a strategic position. What you don't find is anyone proposing to use a bioweapon as a coup de grace. Those that study these things understand that any biological agent has an in-built time limit on its effectiveness. Edit: I just realized I should mention that while I don't appreciate the sensationalism espoused by the scientific press, H5N1 is a very real, very troubling threat. It won't wipe out the human race, but it does have a good chance of setting humanity back a decade or two (not from disease, but primarily from the knock-on effects of people reacting to the disease, halting productive work and worldwide travel). In my mind, though, this is all the more reason to publish this research and, while we're at it, pour some more money into the worldwide flu monitoring network.

skrebbel 15y ago

I don't get how a US body has to decide whether Dutch and Japanese research papers are allowed to be published.

jballanc 15y ago
Science is an American publication. If this were submitted to Nature, I suspect we'd be hearing about some British committee fretting over this...or perhaps not since Americans seem particularly prone to sensationalism.
- skrebbel 15y ago
  Ahh right. That makes sense. That said, I can't see Science (the magazine) being mentioned in the article anywhere - unless the "Science" in "Science Insider" and "US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity" refers to the magazine.
  - jballanc 15y ago
    Yes, "Science Insider" is Science's online, rapid publication site for science policy: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/ http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/ .

ck2 15y ago

Yeah let's keep spending money on the TSA groping everyone, terrorists would never just spread a super-flu instead. Ironically the TSA could be the ones to spread a virus from person to person because I am sure they do not change gloves on every grope?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

erikstarck 15y ago

Before 20th century: man can destroy man. 20th century: mankind can destroy mankind. 21st century: man can destroy mankind. Edit: let me just add that I'm extremely positive about the future, it's just that there are certain challenges that we as a society must deal with. The ability for one man or a small group of men to more or less wipe out the human race will be in our reach within perhaps just a few years. We can deal with this by different control mechanisms in our society. I'm a firm believer in the transparent society but the way things are going right now we seem to be moving towards a government controlled big brother society. Is that the way we want it? Now is the time to discuss these issues if we want to change route.

brador 15y ago
22nd century: mankind can destroy man.
itmag 15y ago
Check into the concepts of super empowerment, systems disruption and 5GW (as popularized on John Robb's Global Guerillas blog). http://dreaming5gw.com/5gw_lexicon/s/super-empowered-individuals.php http://dreaming5gw.com/5gw_lexicon/s/super-empowered-individ... http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/ http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/ Kul att se dig hær førresten :)
dcx 15y ago
Isn't this the same problem as nuclear knowledge regulation though? We definitely need some controls here, but the government doesn't need to control everything big brother style. Just a few specific items within a few domains of knowledge. I'm not a big fan of government secrecy either but if the choice is between that and self-extinction, well...! Our Stone Age circumstances have left us with some pretty predatorial instincts and drives. It makes sense to put in safeguards to protect us from our own giant technological reach. It gives us time to let our social/cultural immune systems catch up. And these probably don't have to be permanent - I'm not sure, but it does feel like we're moving towards greater freedom over time. Look at the chemicals you can buy in any hardware store or pharmacy today, and the instruction guides freely available on the internet. Individuals can already cause asymmetrically large harm but generally don't, because we're already fairly self-domesticated. (Credit to Simon of Space for this line of thought - http://cheeseburgerbrown.com/stories/Simon_of_Space/ http://cheeseburgerbrown.com/stories/Simon_of_Space/)

Apocryphon 15y ago

This story is from RT, or Russia Today. It's a news network that's been known to run sensationalist stories.

corroded 15y ago

Let's all hope Umbrella Corporation doesn't get a hold of this...

Zash 15y ago

What could possibly go wrong?

billpatrianakos 15y ago

First off, way to sensationalize. Due to the writing style and title I don't think this should be e number one story right now. But anyway, published or not "bio terrorists" are not the kind of people the article wants you to picture. The only likely way such an attack could be carried out would be with massive support of some unfriendly government. There's no bio-weapon Al Quaeda working group or anything like that and if there were the worst they could do is try to infect us by releasing some infected animal loose somewhere in the hopes it would infect someone. I wish this post didn't have "fluff piece" written all over it and focused in a far more detailed way about the merits of publishing scientific studies that could be used for nefarious purposes. Unfortunately, the post gives us so little facts on that subject that none of us could really build a good argument for or against it without doing a fair amount of research first or resorting to uneducated guesses and opinions. It's too bad, really.

DanBC 15y ago
> There's no bio-weapon Al Quaeda working group or anything like that You're aware that Aum Shinrikyo released aerosolised anthrax spores for a week in Japan before they stopped, and that it's only because they used the wrong anthrax that there wasn't widespread infection? That was in 1993; I imagine it's technologically much easier and cheaper to do it now, but that there are tighter controls over chemicals etc. The article is sensationalist. Bio-terrorists don't need to kill anyone, they just need to cause economic harm. They can do this by releasing blue-tongue or foot&mouth or whatever in a few farms. That costs billions and long lasting damage. (http://www.fmd.brass.cf.ac.uk/ http://www.fmd.brass.cf.ac.uk/)
- learc83 15y ago
  Yeah, they released the wrong Anthrax spores. An amateur move, they weren't a hard core group of bioengineers--just some guys who happened to get hold of some anthrax spores. The issue here is creating this strain, sure some crazy death cult would use a weaponized flu, but the OP is arguing they wouldn't be able to create it in the first place.
  - 15y ago

DaveChild 15y ago

Captain Trips.

DaveChild 15y ago
No fans of The Stand here? :)

nussbi 15y ago

whether or not the they publish this information - if it exists indeed - will it really matter? I mean; why bother with a future that does not exist yet? If it gets out and holds to be genuine information then some fascist group (sect, terrorists, whoever) develops it and releases it into the wild... What will happen? WE DON'T KNOW. It could kill half of humanity but also only a few people, we can't say. All we know for sure is that there may be hugely harmful virus data in some lab. That's all there is to say, future will tell what's gonna happen. Why bother with a future we can't predict?

tokenadult 15y ago

Thanks to the commenters who pointed to more balanced news stories about this line of research. Some of the other comments here mention the difficulty in developing strain-specific flu vaccines. That difficulty is why research on universal flu vaccines http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jul2010/niaid-15.htm http://www.nih.gov/news/health/jul2010/niaid-15.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/06/flu-universal-vaccine-test-success http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/06/flu-universal-... is going on in multiple countries, with some major funding support. Antiviral medicines that treat cases of the flu tend to be in short supply in every flu season, but some governments have taken care to stockpile those in ways that ensure that essential services would go on in those countries even during a severe flu pandemic. Further research on broad-spectrum flu vaccines, including a possible universal vaccine, is warranted to prevent natural strains of the flu and is ongoing. Further research, development, and production of antiviral medicines to treat people who catch the flu is also warranted and ongoing. A new pandemic, from whatever source, would be extremely disruptive, but as an astute previous comment pointed out, people can do things like self-quarantine, and such simple forms of self-protection were very effective in stopping the SARS epidemic in 2003. Predicting the death of half of humankind based the preliminary finding reported in the rather sensational story submitted here is not a prediction I believe or worry about.

bitwize 15y ago

But can it spread to Madagascar?

mootothemax 15y ago

After 10 generations, the virus had mutated to become airborne Can someone more qualified than me comment on this? I was under the impression that this is as ridiculous as saying that you started out with dogs and ended up with cats 10 generations later. That viruses belong to specific families, and those families include how they're transmitted. My knowledge of this field is extremely limited; can someone please clear up my confusion? :)

jballanc 15y ago
In fact you are more or less correct. It is as if they put in dogs and got out cats. That's just how Influenza works. It mutates, adapts, and evolves extremely rapidly. This is why it never has been, and likely never will be, eradicated (notice that those "in the know" don't even talk about Influenza eradication in passing).

kunle 15y ago

Just seems like playing with fire. I get the whole idea of helping humanity cope with an epidemic, but not clear why they didnt just do THAT research instead.

laughinghan 15y ago
It's hard to figure out how to put out fires based on news reports of what fires are like. At some point you just have to set fire to something in a laboratory and see if you can actually put it out. It helps that just like it's not actually possible to start a fire that would actually incinerate half the globe, it's not actually possible to create a virus that would wipe out half of humanity. The article is wrong and sensationalist.

marze 15y ago

How stupid.

httpitis 15y ago

Why would anyone even begin to think about developing this sort of thing?

frisco 15y ago

According to Wikipedia, Erasmus Medical Center (or, for that matter, all of Rotterdam) only has labs rated up to Biosafety Level 3. This sounds like it should be the definition of BSL4. I wonder whether the research was conducted elsewhere, Wikipedia is wrong, or if they're really doing this in a BSL2 or BSL3 lab.

jarin 15y ago

To me, the scariest thing (which seems to be overlooked) is that this particular strain of Avian Flu is only 5 mutations away from the Avian Flu in the wild. While we're fretting about whether this will get out of a lab, it's not entirely unlikely that a similar strain will evolve in the wild (now you know why they burned all those chickens in China). Edit: "A genetic study showed that the new, dangerous strain had only five mutations compared to the original one, and all of them were earlier seen in the natural environment – just not all at once."

dools 15y ago

The ethical dilemma is interesting and, I think, parallels the "security through obscurity" approach to software security. If the findings are published, the scientific community at large can work to fight a pandemic which may happen anyway, but at the same time may decrease the time until a pandemic occurs by giving information to those who would willingly produce it for their personal gain.

joeycfan 15y ago

What, only half? What am I paying you people for? Back to the lab! Where's my Captain Trips?

vl 15y ago

Is it time to stockpile Tamiflu again? But, seriously, isn't it obvious that publication of the fact that this research is blocked is already enough for terrorists? From the preliminary report they already have an outline of what needs to be done, they know where to go and who to ask or what to steal if they can't do it themselves.