3 ms·
This seems link bait-y to me: "That said they created a life-threatening virus that is only 3 percent different from the 1918 Spanish flu" I bet the flu itself
by opendais 12y ago
This seems link bait-y to me:
"That said they created a life-threatening virus that is only 3 percent different from the 1918 Spanish flu"
I bet the flu itself changed that much in nature between 1918 and now all on its own.
For reference 4% difference is between humans and apes.:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_...
I'm not saying creating a deadly virus is ethical. Personally, I think it is under sufficiently tight controls...since these things exist in nature and if we don't understand them, we risk a repeat of 1918.
- JunkDNA 12y agoThis page has a nice, succinct definition of how the various kinds of mutations can contribute to influenza changes. In short, a percentage difference isn't that informative. It matters greatly what is actually different: http://nieman.harvard.edu/Microsites/NiemanGuideToCoveringPandemicFlu/TheScience/HowFluVirusesChange.aspx http://nieman.harvard.edu/Microsites/NiemanGuideToCoveringPa...
- opendais 12y agoCool. Thanks for the link. :)
- jsz0 12y agoMost people would read this article and be left with the impression that man made strains of influenza escaping from a lab are a greater risk than the natural processes that allow influenza to mutate so effectively in the wild. Hard to see that as anything more than taking advantage of people's ignorance. We are very lucky that it's been almost 100 years since we had to deal with a serious influenza pandemic.