H5N1 Bird Flu Mutations...Should Science be Censored Sometimes?

[1231lovelyn]

all hv to say is if the terrorist can get their hands on all the equipment then they can find the way to get documents even if they were made confidential.. Also for ppl like me who do understand these papers would like to read before taking any vaccines..

[MultiUniv3rsal]

To counter Louis, any virologist could take this information and run with it. Virology is like Oncology - you're not so much building on a foundation as you are wading through mountains of genetic code and hoping you find the right combinations. Once you've found what you're looking for it's incredibly easy to duplicate the results. Thank you, Watson & Crick.

[MultiUniv3rsal]

You can only censor a 'doomsday virus' for so long, just like you can only keep the secrets of atomic energy a secret until someone else figures it out their damn selves.

We'll just have to rely on the fact that so far no one's tried to destroy the world a la 12 Monkeys.

If down the road someone thinks the world would be better with 90% of it's people dead, we're just gonna have to be more ready than that guy.

[GigaBoost]

The black banner at amazon dot com?

[kamphwagon1]

ROFL ,this is small potatoes chump change , theres a good chance you'l survive the flu with decent medical care ..What people should be concerned with is genetic spliceing and not a natural mutation .. How about a splice/ cross between anthrax and ebolia ? It does exist and theres no efective treatment or surviveability !...

[47f0]

@kamphwagon1 - Seriously? To begin with, Ebola (not ebolia,btw) happens to be a virus. Anthrax is a bacterium. They operate completely differently, and neither has genes useful to the other. And before you get too dismissive about the flu, you might learn a little history and check out the 1918 flu. A quarter of the world population infected and between 3% to 6% dead (50-100 million). That's nothing to sneeze at (pardon the expression)

[kamphwagon1]

@47f0 Hey guy the Soveits did this splice years ago for military reasons CBR warfare and it does exist , they now have corn that produces bacterium that kills corn ear worms in it's pollen , a plant that produces bacteria !... 3 to 6 % is nothing compaired to a 100% kill... And medical knowlege ,care,treatment has come a long way since 1918 , most people who die do so from complications from flu now days..

[47f0]

@kamphwagon1 - Yeah, see, here's the problem. No plant produces bacteria. The so-called BT corn produces an insecticidal protein (delta endotoxin) that was taken from Bacillus thuringiensis DNA - but that's absolutely not the same as making a functional bacterium. Similarly, goats have had spider silk DNA introduced into the genes that produce milk - but the goats do not give birth to spiders. You've got some terrifically confused notions about how this stuff works.

[kamphwagon1]

@47f0 Maybe not the bacteria but for all practical pourposes it's the same end effect as if the bacteria was present, still small potatoes comparied to what the Soveits produced with genetic spliceing for biological warfare with a combination of bacteria & virus spliceing.. I'm hardy confused about genetic spliceing anyone knows mamals don't re-produce eraconids...

[47f0]

@kamphwagon1 - "anyone knows mamals don't re-produce eraconids".

.

Sigh. The word you struggled valiantly for, but failed to produce, is arachnids. Maybe English is not your native language? However, just as you acknowledge that mammals (three 'm's, BTW) cannot produce arthropods, bacteria cannot produce viruses - nor can viruses produce bacteria. They literally have less in common than goats and spiders. You claim to be 67 - but it's never too late for school.

[kamphwagon1]

@47f0 No but they can be geniticly spliced to produce killing toxins fom each other ,just like BT corn a whole new species that has the potential to wipe the human race out...Btw your smarter than thou attitude won't win you any points for your lack of not knowing anything about the Soveit biological warfare program !.. ROFL

[47f0]

@kamphwagon1 - Oh bother. The word is "Soviet", dammit and frankly, given your degree of illiteracy, if I'm not "smarter than thou" I've at least managed an education. I'm sure you can find some tin-foil hat sites that make bizarre claims, but viruses do not use "killing toxins". They just don't. And bacteria don't hijack a nucleus to reproduce themselves - the mechanisms just don't exist. Where are you getting this nonsense - Alex Jones?

[kamphwagon1]

@47f0 Not hardy fundie Readers Digest ran a article on the Soviet program years ago... and I gusse you didn't remember their two headed dog either eh ...

[47f0]

@kamphwagon1 - Yeah. Because Reader's Digest is where I go for all my science news. Sheesh. The 2-headed dogs are well documented, and don't violate any biology at all - if you give a head nutrients and oxygen, it will survive - it's mostly a plumbing problem (although there are long-term neurological issues)

[TheChamseyCampaign]

Go Lewis!

[TonPappa]

They shouldnt release how they did it but say it is possible and they are creating cure for it if it ever dose go to the public. They shouldn't be saying how they did it and the process because that's just stupid and careless.

[Demarcoa]

@TonPappa agreed. They could give access to anyone who wanted to replicate the research (for experimental purposes or peer review) and keep it confidential otherwise. Seems like common sense to me, so long as they are transparent about everything not dangerous.

[pensivesim]

Censorship is bullshit.

[dafttool]

The ONLY way science really works is with the peer review of other scientists, so that findings can be tested by other scientists & verified. Otherwise the science is done in a vacuum & the findings become increasingly suspect. --The real debate should not be censorship but of the ethics of doing this research in the first place. I tend to put faith in the research being needed more than it should be feared. You can't hold back science for the mere fear of it maybe being exploited irresponsibly.

[enlightenedone676]

The best censorship for creating devices that can kill humans, is never creating it at all.

[kazooga1234]

it shows that H1N1 was also made and that they cant make another H1N1 that they are doing H5N1

[bballadante]

Why would they need an artifical faster and easier spreading version of one of the most deadly diseases to create a vaccine for the actual disease?

And why would they even create it in the first place? What purpose does it serve? Sounds like treading where we should never tread.

[TearsOfWar1]

@bballadante Idk... Ask a scientist who is in that field.

[enlightenedone676]

@bballadante The 'purpose' is to identify possible upcoming natural mutations of the disease as well as possible mutations that could be engineered by 'terrorists' in order to study and produce a vaccine for the disease. Think of it like looking into a possible future, and curing a disease preemptively.

Now, whether this is ethical or not is up for debate. But in my honest opinion, there is far more important life saving research that the money could have been spent on.

[bballadante]

@enlightenedone676 Could be curing a disease preemptively, or creating one preemptively. They make the slightest mistake with containment and we're looking at hundreds of millions, if not billions dead.

Not to mention that by public announcing the test, they've already eliminated the uselessness of the results. Rather than the bird flu, bioterrorists would now just mix another high death ratio disease.

[enlightenedone676]

@bballadante That's why I put 'purpose' in quotes, because officially that's what the project is for. To these lab's credit though, containment procedures are very strict and the chances of that occurring are unlikely, unless there is some intent there.

Publicly announcing partial results imo is likely an error in judgement. However, it could have been done by the scientists to ensure the world knows about it before it disappears into the US' repertoire of biological weapons.

[bballadante]

@enlightenedone676 What if a future public paranoia of this disease leads to mass, widespread vaccinations, which given the fact that it is a disease that was man made (perhaps giving it unnatural properties), leads to actual contamination with this disease?

A simple scenario, away from the conspiracies theories. Do you see why this shouldn've never been made?

[enlightenedone676]

@bballadante Widespread vaccinations aren't likely unless the disease somehow enters the population since, as you said, this is man made and not yet occurring naturally. But, your second point doesn't really hold up. Vaccines are always tested before release. If we're talking a 'Contagion' style outbreak and the vaccine is rushed, sure it's possible, but not probable. Modern epidemic/quarantine procedures, are the reason SARS, H1N1 etc. etc. don't live up to their threat levels.

[enlightenedone676]

@bballadante And to answer your final question, you have no arguments from me. I disagree ethically with the manufacture of any device that can kill massive amounts of people almost instantly. I would rather die by the hands of one myself, than be even partially responsible for its potential use. People are paranoid and generally insane, especially when they discover how simple it is make these devices and then stockpile them because they fear others might do the same. Insanity.