Science

jakeXT

(10,575 posts) Tue Dec 16, 2014, 04:43 PM Dec 2014

Scientists Debate If It's OK To Make Viruses More Dangerous In The Lab

Imagine that scientists wanted to take Ebola virus and see if it could ever become airborne by deliberately causing mutations in the lab and then searching through those new viruses to see if any spread easily through the air.

Would that be OK?

The question was posed by David Relman, a microbiologist at Stanford University, at a two-day meeting being held National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., to discuss whether some experiments with germs are so risky that the dangers aren't worth the potential benefits.

Researchers call these "gain-of-function" experiments. Take a bug that's bad and give it some genes that just might give the microbes new abilities.

The work has split the scientific community. Some of the most the prominent figures in this saga showed up at the historic National Academy of Sciences building this week to have another go at it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/12/16/371198040/scientists-debate-if-its-ok-to-make-viruses-more-dangerous-in-the-lab

20 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Scientists Debate If It's OK To Make Viruses More Dangerous In The Lab (Original Post) jakeXT Dec 2014 OP

They're just debating that now??? Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #1

Shirley no one believes they have done that before now. dixiegrrrrl Dec 2014 #6

Double Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #7

Yea science. Do what ever you want we upaloopa Dec 2014 #2

Stupid humans. GeorgeGist Dec 2014 #3

It's called biological warfare Man from Pickens Dec 2014 #4

I I think such experiments are a bad idea. What if a more dangerous virus somehow got out Louisiana1976 Dec 2014 #5

I guess someone needs to send The Stand to them LiberalArkie Dec 2014 #8

Yes, because science should be guided by science fiction scare stories. Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #10

Gee, Mbrow Dec 2014 #9

I actually think it is OK. Because that's how we can learn to prevent pandemics. Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #11

I believe you have a valid point, Buttttt Mbrow Dec 2014 #13

I completely agree. Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #18

+1 phantom power Dec 2014 #14

They used harmless bacteria in the 50s and still had one death, but the consent issue was probably jakeXT Dec 2014 #16

Oh, Jesus, yeah-- testing stuff on people without their consent is a whole other ball of wax! Warren DeMontague Dec 2014 #17

There are things man was not meant to know. n/t Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2014 #12

meant by whom? phantom power Dec 2014 #15

You didn't recognize the quote? Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2014 #19

Why not experiment on harmless viruses? DetlefK Dec 2014 #20

Dont call me Shirley

(10,998 posts)

1. They're just debating that now???

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 04:48 PM

Dec 2014

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)

6. Shirley no one believes they have done that before now.

Reply to Dont call me Shirley (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 05:20 PM

Dec 2014

Dont call me Shirley

(10,998 posts)

7. Double

Reply to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 05:30 PM

Dec 2014

upaloopa

(11,417 posts)

2. Yea science. Do what ever you want we

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 04:53 PM

Dec 2014

will figure out if it is destructive after it destroys.

GeorgeGist

(25,321 posts)

3. Stupid humans.

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 05:01 PM

Dec 2014

Man from Pickens

(1,713 posts)

4. It's called biological warfare

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 05:05 PM

Dec 2014

and it's an unambiguous crime against humanity.

Anyone who is not crystal clear on this has no business being anywhere near a research lab.

Louisiana1976

(3,962 posts)

5. I I think such experiments are a bad idea. What if a more dangerous virus somehow got out

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 05:15 PM

Dec 2014

of the lab?

LiberalArkie

(15,716 posts)

8. I guess someone needs to send The Stand to them

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Tue Dec 16, 2014, 06:55 PM

Dec 2014

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)

10. Yes, because science should be guided by science fiction scare stories.

Reply to LiberalArkie (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 03:24 AM

Dec 2014

Mbrow

(1,090 posts)

9. Gee,

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 01:26 AM

Dec 2014

What could possibly go wrong?

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)

11. I actually think it is OK. Because that's how we can learn to prevent pandemics.

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 03:26 AM

Dec 2014

And the hyperbolic knee-jerk misinformation that surrounds stories on this; like the flu researcher who "engineered a flu virus that can kill all of humanity" (he didn't) doesn't make me more sympathetic to the "no" argument.

It needs to be done with caution, but there are reasons for the research that don't involve lightning, white hair sticking straight out, and some crazy-eyed guy in a lab coat going "ITS ALIVE MUAHAHAHAHAAA"

Mbrow

(1,090 posts)

13. I believe you have a valid point, Buttttt

Reply to Warren DeMontague (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 01:38 PM

Dec 2014

My wife worked in the pharmacology Dept at UCSD for years.... these clowns spilled radioactive tags all over the place, one day someone playing with a Geiger counter found the whole place had higher the normal background radiation from spills that were "just wiped up" and not reported.

The long and short of it is Mistakes happen and how well do you trust the people doing it? CDC? yes, Monsato? Hell no.

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)

18. I completely agree.

Reply to Mbrow (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 06:14 PM

Dec 2014

I think if scientists are going to be doing any sort of potentially dangerous virus research, etc, they need to be up front and transparent about it AND they need to take safety seriously and be held accountable for it.

That said, unless Monsanto can figure out how to make money off the flu virus, I don't think it's their area of interest.

phantom power

(25,966 posts)

14. +1

Reply to Warren DeMontague (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 04:02 PM

Dec 2014

Nature can, and does, engineer deadly microbes all the time. We can either do some experimenting ourselves, or passively wait for nature. In which case we'll have fewer tools to fight it.

jakeXT

(10,575 posts)

16. They used harmless bacteria in the 50s and still had one death, but the consent issue was probably

Reply to Warren DeMontague (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 05:01 PM

Dec 2014

more problematic in that example ... simpler times

In 1950, the Army secretly used a Navy ship cruising just outside the Golden Gate to spray supposedly harmless bacteria over the entire city and its outskirts. Eleven people were sickened by the germs in San Francisco, and one of them died.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/When-U-S-attacked-itself-Government-tested-2864377.php

Warren DeMontague

(80,708 posts)

17. Oh, Jesus, yeah-- testing stuff on people without their consent is a whole other ball of wax!

Reply to jakeXT (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 06:11 PM

Dec 2014

my response presumes they're experimenting with the viruses in the lab, not on random unwitting victims.

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)

12. There are things man was not meant to know. n/t

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 08:14 AM

Dec 2014

phantom power

(25,966 posts)

15. meant by whom?

Reply to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 17, 2014, 04:03 PM

Dec 2014

Fortinbras Armstrong

(4,473 posts)

19. You didn't recognize the quote?

Reply to phantom power (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 18, 2014, 04:59 AM

Dec 2014

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)

20. Why not experiment on harmless viruses?

Reply to jakeXT (Original post)

Fri Dec 19, 2014, 09:10 AM

Dec 2014

I have colleagues that work with the TBSV "tomato bushy stunt virus". It causes tomato-plants to grow crippled and bushy. Why not experiment on that?

Also, this question is exactly the plot of the remake of "Planet of the Apes": Scientist developes medicine. How to get medicine into patient? Simple: Use an ultra-aggressive airborne virus. Because ultra-aggressive airborne viruses will stop mutating and will do right as they are told.

Reply to this discussion