Is US disease research ethical?

mr_angry

Having read this story on New Scientist today, I have to wonder whether US disease research is done in a responsible manner. If the US is so worried about Bioterrorism, why are they the ones creating deadly viruses capable of wiping out every human being on this planet?

I know that the threat of terrorists developing toxins is very real, but they don't have the funding or the knowledge of scientists in the US. Surely this kind of research is helping the terrorists, rather than hindering them? I really think this kind of research effort is irresponsible, and highly unethical. Is this just a misguided effort, or is there a hidden agenda?

I really think this kind of research effort is irresponsible, and highly unethical

i agree completely. no secret is completely safe, and Bio-warfare weapons can be produced just abt anywhere, with a little cash. On a side note, i've always wondered why the US continues to stockpile biological & chemical weapons, when they're apparently so adament against them. Essentially this type of research should be stopped, since they're intent of creating new strains rather that eradicating old ones...

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from mr_angry4
Is this just a misguided effort, or is there a hidden agenda?

What could possibly be described as a hidden agenda about the world's most miltaristic interventionist society developing super-virulent agents capable of being employed in weapons? Remember, it wasn't the US Government who built the B-52, it was a private company...

Geromino

Whats funny is that mousepox virus is not contageous to human but only to mice. So, for those of you who fail to do research and just go on feelings:

Mousepox virus: A virus belonging to the family Poxviridae morphologically similar to vaccinia virus, which occurs as a latent infection in laboratory mice, but which may be activated by stresses such as irradiation and transport to cause disease; inoculation into the footpad results in oedema and necrosis.

Synonym: ectromelia virus, mousepox virus, pseudolymphocytic choriomeningitis virus

If you look at the history, the virus came as a direct result from an outbreak of mice in a research labatory of trying to find better immune agent to smallpox. However, when attempting this feat, the scientists acciidently created "mousepox."

Eomer, your version of historomics amazes me. You have not seen mititarization until you research ancient Greek, Roman, Hun, Aztec, ancient Egyptian, and Persian empires. USSR does not even come close.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Whats funny is that mousepox virus is not contageous to human but only to mice. So, for those of you who fail to do research and just go on feelings:

"But the research brings closer the prospect of pox viruses that cause only mild infections in humans being turned into diseases lethal even to people who have been vaccinated."

"While viruses containing mouse IL-4 should not be lethal to humans, recombinant viruses can have unexpected effects, he says. "You'd hope the combination remains mouse-specific."

I'm reminded of two things by this story.
One was a NOVA doccy I saw a year or so ago that involved Judith Miller (as descredited as she has become) where she "exposed" a Dod project of developing bio-weapons on an old test missle range in Nevade. The Dod learned of her "expose" and made it public the day before. Their reason for the lab "we just wanted to see what terrorists would be able to do.
Second is when I was reading Jurassic Park well before the movie came out. One line from that book stuck with me and I'm always reminded of when someone in the science community says "that can't happen".

"Nature will always find a way"

Eomer, your version of historomics amazes me. You have not seen mititarization until you research ancient Greek, Roman, Hun, Aztec, ancient Egyptian, and Persian empires. USSR does not even come close.

While it wasn't addressed to me, I'm just wondering what your point was...

bonkey

Originally posted by Geromino
Whats funny is that mousepox virus is not contageous to human but only to mice.

...

If you look at the history, the virus came as a direct result from an outbreak of mice in a research labatory of trying to find better immune agent to smallpox. However, when attempting this feat, the scientists acciidently created "mousepox."

So mousepox was created when a human-targettable virus mutated into one which affected mice only.....

Whats to stop super-mousepox from mutating in a "reversed" direction to enable it to species-jump? Very little, one would imagine.

Without getting into hystrionics about it....I would tend to question the presented argument that "we need to do this to figure out what terrorists may be up to". Why? Thats basically saying "we need to invent this, to see if its possible that terrorists could invent it". Of course, once you've put all the hard work in, the terrorists know its possible and know who has the information to steal, cause you've done all the hard work for them.

Is it ethical....no, I don't believe it is. I don't believe science has an overwhelming need to create a super-virus for any species, and I am thoroughly unconvinced that the reason to do it is in any way linked to bio-terrorism concerns.

At the end of the day, though, I would also say that I do not believe the US - or its bio-companies - is in any way unique in this regard. Hell, you'll probably find that there were a handful or other companies scattered round the globe who were "racing" these guys to the goal......

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
Eomer, your version of historomics amazes me. You have not seen mititarization until you research ancient Greek, Roman, Hun, Aztec, ancient Egyptian, and Persian empires. USSR does not even come close.

Two things. Don't even go here. I am well on the way to becoming a doctor of Ancient History so I daresay my expertise in the ancient world outweighs yours.

Second, relevence?

Geromino

Originally posted by bonkey
So mousepox was created when a human-targettable virus mutated into one which affected mice only.....

Whats to stop super-mousepox from mutating in a "reversed" direction to enable it to species-jump? Very little, one would imagine.

In terms of naturally, no one can stop evolution. In reference to being man-made, no has the ability. In order for that premise to be true, one would have to know the exact functions of the billions of DNA and protein combinations of such an organism. No one has that capability. If we had that capability, don't you thknnk the various health organizations would be making genetic drugs to fight specific diseases or do you believe that certain groups always put "the people down." We have just mapped out the human genome. Scientiests are now mapping out the genomes of other species, but no one knows the exact combinations of sequences, the effects of those sequences, and how to precisely manipulate them to precise degrees of realibility. But this does not even address your main accusation: the US purposely made mousepox. That is pure false if you look at the papers on how "mousepox" was created. It goes again to the premise of precise biochemical knowledge that no one has the knowledge to make such a thing. That is pure science fiction, 'Star Trek" or even apocalyptic.

Without getting into hystrionics about it....I would tend to question the presented argument that "we need to do this to figure out what terrorists may be up to". Why? Thats basically saying "we need to invent this, to see if its possible that terrorists could invent it". Of course, once you've put all the hard work in, the terrorists know its possible and know who has the information to steal, cause you've done all the hard work for them.

There is a huge difference in prevention, which was the case, than actual proactive militaristic attitudes. Actually, most scientific research in the US is done through research grants submitted by scientists to the National Institute of Health, the CDC, and other various organizations. Ft. Detrick, the military's home of biomedical research, is now the only place in the world with substantial smallpox vaccines. If a group develops a smallpox resstent to the current vaccine, then you will have another epidemic far worse than the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919. Prevention is a major component in battling bioterrorism.

Is it ethical....no, I don't believe it is. I don't believe science has an overwhelming need to create a super-virus for any species, and I am thoroughly unconvinced that the reason to do it is in any way linked to bio-terrorism concerns.

At the end of the day, though, I would also say that I do not believe the US - or its bio-companies - is in any way unique in this regard. Hell, you'll probably find that there were a handful or other companies scattered round the globe who were "racing" these guys to the goal......

jc

But how does one define what is ethical and what is not. Would you consider as ethical of cloning specific human organs but not an entire homan body? How about cloning animals? How about making more potent the current poisons known throughout the world in order to develop more potent anit-venoms if such an event occurs. This leads to the second question, if the US or the various groups is doing something unethical (in your view) but you believe your own groups/governments is pursueing the same goal, does that make the same goal ethical or unethical?

Geromino

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Two things. Don't even go here. I am well on the way to becoming a doctor of Ancient History so I daresay my expertise in the ancient world outweighs yours.

Second, relevence?

Oh really! As far as relevance, then what about that crack "What could possibly be described as a hidden agenda about the world's most miltaristic interventionist society developing super-virulent agents capable of being employed in weapons?" And as I have stated, you have not seen a militaistic society until you lived in ancient times, not read or research them. Even the USSR cannot be compared to the ancient societies of military conquest and military society.

Second, so what you are getting a PhD in Ancient History. And your point was what exactly. The true question is, what are you going to do with that degree of yours. Will you research in which you will put your political views into your research and rewrite history and make it someone else's fault? Will you develop some new theory that aliens from "Planet X" came down and helped the Egyptians, the Mesopotamiams, or other ancient civilization in their society. Or will you expand the knowledge about the ancient world and present history and "HIS STORY" again.

mr_angry

That is pure false if you look at the papers on how "mousepox" was created.

I think the point that was being made was that mousepox was created accidentally out of scientific research into other deadly pox viruses, and by continuing to invent new deadly strains of pox viruses, we are in danger of another inter-species mutation, which could ultimately kill us all. We're not saying that it couldn't happen naturally anyway, but that this type of research is increasing the chances of such a mutation happenning.

If a group develops a smallpox resstent to the current vaccine, then you will have another epidemic far worse than the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919. Prevention is a major component in battling bioterrorism.

Yes. But even a US-funded, fully legitimate group developing such viral strains is increasing the liklihood of an outbreak. In fact, they might be making the terrorists' job easier for them. You'll note from the report that it is now becoming even less likely that scientists will report thefts, as the consequences are so serious for them. That is why I think this kind of research is unethical - there is no perceived benefit to mankind, unless scientists develop a load of cures very quickly. Which they aren't capable of doing. The negatives clearly outweigh the benefits.

How about cloning animals?

This is a completely separate issue. I'm not talking about the ethics of every aspect of medical science - I just think this particular issue is unethical, and I don't think we should dilute the issue by bringing other topics into this.

Which brings me to my final point - can you and Eomer stop arguing over petty disagreements, and stick to the point. There's probably a "playpen" forum somewhere where you guys can have it out in the manner of your choosing.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
Second, so what you are getting a PhD in Ancient History. And your point was what exactly. The true question is, what are you going to do with that degree of yours. Will you research in which you will put your political views into your research and rewrite history and make it someone else's fault? Will you develop some new theory that aliens from "Planet X" came down and helped the Egyptians, the Mesopotamiams, or other ancient civilization in their society. Or will you expand the knowledge about the ancient world and present history and "HIS STORY" again.

My point was made already. I know more about this than you. End of.

If you would like an illustration of this then I suggest that you compare the most militarist interventionist society in the ancient world (which would be the Romans) and pick the worst possible single interventionist war they were ever involved in and then do the same for the USA (the country at which my earlier comment was directed) and consider the scope of territorial / political ambitions, the casualties involved, the devastation to land and all the other results of militarist interventionism.

You tell me then what your choices are with regard to militarist interventionist wars, the worst you know in ancient times and the worst you know in modern times and I will happily disprove you. I withhold my own personal choice of each to halt the inevitable spew of "that's not the greatest militarist interventionist war in ancient/modern times" that would be put forth.

But please, since you cannot come up with a better argument than to try and attack my superior ability with regard to ancient/modern comparisons, please let's do this in THIS thread

Geromino

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I think the point that was being made was that mousepox was created accidentally out of scientific research into other deadly pox viruses, and by continuing to invent new deadly strains of pox viruses, we are in danger of another inter-species mutation, which could ultimately kill us all. We're not saying that it couldn't happen naturally anyway, but that this type of research is increasing the chances of such a mutation happenning.

Although there is always a possibiltiy, the probability is somewhat slim in this regard. This still doen not negate the fact that researchers by their very nature are very inquisitive in expanding the boundries of science. But naturally it does happen. SARS and AIDS are two primary examples of animal mutation diseases jumping to humans.

Yes. But even a US-funded, fully legitimate group developing such viral strains is increasing the liklihood of an outbreak. In fact, they might be making the terrorists' job easier for them. You'll note from the report that it is now becoming even less likely that scientists will report thefts, as the consequences are so serious for them. That is why I think this kind of research is unethical - there is no perceived benefit to mankind, unless scientists develop a load of cures very quickly. Which they aren't capable of doing. The negatives clearly outweigh the benefits.

I have heard very similar arguments before but involved the space race between the Soviet Union and the USA. It is now being revived after China launched its first manned spaceflight. However, it does not negate the fact that the research may be necessary. There is a great debate going on within the biomedical community on this. The best thing to do is allow the experts to decide what is best and how to proceed and not let the politicians make the decisions.

This is a completely separate issue. I'm not talking about the ethics of every aspect of medical science - I just think this particular issue is unethical, and I don't think we should dilute the issue by bringing other topics into this.

Actually, it is part of the issue. It is called bio ethics amd how bio ethics is prescribed. You may not know this but the outcomes on this may have some repocussions on medical research in how limited or how far research can go. If we eliminate research in which we cannot predict "hazardous" results, then most biomedical research wll be in jeapordy. If we allow biomedical research not to have any limits or expand those limits, then the research of human cloning will proceed. This of course does not put into the equation the religious aspects of biomedical research.

Which brings me to my final point - can you and Eomer stop arguing over petty disagreements, and stick to the point. There's probably a "playpen" forum somewhere where you guys can have it out in the manner of your choosing.

I am just playing with Eomer. I find it particularily amuzing that someone who lashes out and says, "I am getting a PhD in such-in-such" and "I know more than you" and probably has not experienced much in life and in death. But that is my own opinion of course.

Capt'n Midnight

From the NS link

Despite the concerns, work on lethal new pox viruses seems likely to continue in the US. When members of the audience in Geneva questioned the need for such experiments, an American voice in the back boomed out: "Nine-eleven". There were murmurs of agreement.

You can't put the genie back into the bottle.

Once something has been done, then others know it can be done with current technology - so it can be replicated by them.

PS. re B52 being made by Boeing, almost all weapons are made by people & companies - what's the point - they were making B17's that flattened Europe and B29's that flattened Japan before that - they started off life by making planes for the US Govt by undercutting the company who submitted the design they later built.

mr_angry

the fact that researchers by their very nature are very inquisitive in expanding the boundries of science. But naturally it does happen. SARS and AIDS are two primary examples of animal mutation diseases jumping to humans.

I'm a bit confused - are you still disagreeing with me on this, or have you changed your mind? You seem to agree that natuaral mutation is possible (no sh*t), but make no reference to my actual point that scientific research in the area is making such a mutation more likely.

The best thing to do is allow the experts to decide what is best and how to proceed and not let the politicians make the decisions.

Since its the politicians that fund the "experts", I think its quite likely that their opinions and political policies will come into the equation. Of course, this is undesirable, but let's face facts - it happens. But obviously I think that politicians should consider the ethical reprecussions of their investment, aswell as the scientists themselves.

It is called bio ethics amd how bio ethics is prescribed.

I think its unfair to assume that we can't separate bio-ethics into individual issues. In fact, I think we have to. Each individual case should be taken on its merits. I believe this one to be unethical.

I am just playing with Eomer.

Please do it somewhere else, possible where Eomer has suggested. And while not taking sides, I think its arrogant to assume what Eomer knows and doesn't know from a few text-based postings. Try being reasonable for God's sake!

Geromino

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
My point was made already. I know more about this than you. End of.

If you would like an illustration of this then I suggest that you compare the most militarist interventionist society in the ancient world (which would be the Romans) and pick the worst possible single interventionist war they were ever involved in and then do the same for the USA (the country at which my earlier comment was directed) and consider the scope of territorial / political ambitions, the casualties involved, the devastation to land and all the other results of militarist interventionism.

You tell me then what your choices are with regard to militarist interventionist wars, the worst you know in ancient times and the worst you know in modern times and I will happily disprove you. I withhold my own personal choice of each to halt the inevitable spew of "that's not the greatest militarist interventionist war in ancient/modern times" that would be put forth.

But please, since you cannot come up with a better argument than to try and attack my superior ability with regard to ancient/modern comparisons, please let's do this in THIS thread

First of all, how can you compare Rome with the US in terms of military intervention since the definition has changed from the times of the ancient world and now. In fact, the term "military intervention" has changed dramatically over the past sixty years. This is mostly because of cultural, political, economic, and socialogical changes that transform society, and the world to an extent, as a whole. But then again, you proved my point. I guess the Soviet Union was just a charity club out to protect the world from the evil Satanists of America. LMAO.

Geromino

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I'm a bit confused - are you still disagreeing with me on this, or have you changed your mind? You seem to agree that natuaral mutation is possible (no sh*t), but make no reference to my actual point that scientific research in the area is making such a mutation more likely.

I am disagreeing on the more likely part in terms of actuality. However, where there is a will there is a way. If you want to take your point to the extreme, then any scientific research would could be used for lethal means.

Since its the politicians that fund the "experts", I think its quite likely that their opinions and political policies will come into the equation. Of course, this is undesirable, but let's face facts - it happens. But obviously I think that politicians should consider the ethical reprecussions of their investment, aswell as the scientists themselves.

Experts make the recommendations and sometimes make the decisions on such matters. However, let the experts, the scientists in immunology, infectious diseases, and genetics make the decisions on what is ethical and what is not. This is where the debate should start and end by the scientific community, not the politicians who have to satisfy their constituents who may not fully understand the issue at hand or the realities either.

I think its unfair to assume that we can't separate bio-ethics into individual issues. In fact, I think we have to. Each individual case should be taken on its merits. I believe this one to be unethical.

Actually, it is part of the entire bio medical research in what is ethical and what is not. To try to subdivide it into minute pieces of types of research that could have positive or negative aspects to other research areas ignores the realities of biomedical research.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994345
..30 vials of plague bacteria had gone missing from his laboratory at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. ..

...botulinum toxin is on the list, though the medical version, Botox, is exempt from the regulations...

Scary - it looks like the US are intent on creating fear at home...

And can anyone explain how the US could use bio weapons against terrorists ?????????????

It might be possible to engineer a biological agent to target a particular genetic variation in a population (the Isrealies are supposedly working on an anti-arab one, fat chance since they are only slightly more different than Irish and ScotsIrish)

The US has probably the most genetically mixed population in the world and any genetically targeted agent would be more likely to kill someone than in any other country - conversly (scary bit) the US would most likely have more survivors for the same reason..

Geromino

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994345
..30 vials of plague bacteria had gone missing from his laboratory at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. ..

...botulinum toxin is on the list, though the medical version, Botox, is exempt from the regulations...

Scary - it looks like the US are intent on creating fear at home...

And the professor is currently on trial in Lubbock or maybe he is just a scapegoat. By the way, that professor "New Scientist" is talking about, Dr. Thomas Butler, was head of immunology at Texas Tech University, a state supported school. He was also working on a project of blubonic plague with the Tanzanian government. What happened is that Dr Butler illegally transported the substance from Tanzania in the first place and that he did not maintian proper paperword, required by the CDC, to keep up with project. The CDC was not even involved with the project in the first place. I still cannot see how you are linking the US government with this incident given the facts in this case are smuggling plague bacteria from Tanzania, transporting it illegally, lying to federal agents and filing a false income tax return.

And can anyone explain how the US could use bio weapons against terrorists ?????????????

If you want to take a look at a modern biological scare, you can look no further than the recent SARS incident. China was heavily criticized for not taking great steps when the outbreak first broke out in Guangdong province. Extreme measures were taken in Toronto, China, and the US. And it took several months by a dozen health organizations to find out how SARS was contracted. It took even several more months of where the virus came from. And still there is no vaccine for the disease but only precautionary steps and supplemental medicines that are primarily used for similar respatory diseases.

It might be possible to engineer a biological agent to target a particular genetic variation in a population (the Isrealies are supposedly working on an anti-arab one, fat chance since they are only slightly more different than Irish and ScotsIrish)

Possible, but not probable at the moment. This is given the fact that scientists only know about 2% of the human genetic sequences.

The US has probably the most genetically mixed population in the world and any genetically targeted agent would be more likely to kill someone than in any other country - conversly (scary bit) the US would most likely have more survivors for the same reason..

Yes, you can say the US is a microcosm of the world. However, most Americans are muts with various mixed ethnic heritages. To a lesser extent, you also have mixed racial mixture (Black marrying white, Asian marrying white, Asian marrying Black, etc.) So, it would higly improbable that the US would be a target of eithnic genocide. It could be used however to set off panic in the streets, i.e. used as a terror weapon.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
I am just playing with Eomer. I find it particularily amuzing that someone who lashes out and says, "I am getting a PhD in such-in-such" and "I know more than you" and probably has not experienced much in life and in death. But that is my own opinion of course.

Quoted from Geromino
First of all, how can you compare Rome with the US in terms of military intervention since the definition has changed from the times of the ancient world and now. In fact, the term "military intervention" has changed dramatically over the past sixty years. This is mostly because of cultural, political, economic, and socialogical changes that transform society, and the world to an extent, as a whole. But then again, you proved my point. I guess the Soviet Union was just a charity club out to protect the world from the evil Satanists of America. LMAO.

You can laugh your ass off all you wish but you still have yet to post in the thread I created in History/Heritage precisely for this purpose, preferring instead to remain irrelevent and off topic in this thread. What's keeping you?

mr_angry

I am disagreeing on the more likely part in terms of actuality. However, where there is a will there is a way. If you want to take your point to the extreme, then any scientific research would could be used for lethal means.

I still dont think you're getting my actual point. Here's my thinking, logically:

1. Mousepox was created out of scientific research into another deadly pox virus.
2. This happened accidentally, due to an unplanned genetic mutation which enabled the virus to jump species.
3. Had the research not developed the particular strain of pox before the mutation, in the first place, it is unlikely that the mutation would ever have taken place.
4. Scientists are still creating new and potentially deadly strains of pox viruses.
5. Such research is increasing the probability of another inter-species mutation happenning. If such a deadly strain was to mutate into a virus that infects humans, it could kill millions.

One point I am unclear on - how long did it take scientists to develop a treatment for mousepox, or have they done so at all? It certantly took them a long time anyway. Therefore, I find it unlikely that they could quickly develop a counter-agent for a mutated virus in the human genome. The consequences of such an accident are so serious, I believe the research to be unethical. Feel free to pick any holes in my logic, but don't spew random SARS facts at me. I think the reaction to SARS only highlights how devestating an outbreak would be.

To try to subdivide it into minute pieces of types of research that could have positive or negative aspects to other research areas ignores the realities of biomedical research.

I absolutely disagree. Are the ethics cloning discussed as an individual issue, or do all scientists and interested parties say "We cant discuss it - its part of biomedical ethics as a whole"?

They discuss it as an individual issue. And why? Because it deserves to be treated as such - its very important in terms of people's ideas of ethics, religious beliefs, and social conscience. I'm not getting into the actual ethics of cloning, merely pointing out that it is treated as an individual issue, because its important. I feel the same way about this issue. I think to avoid discussion on the topic by saying "We should leave it to other people" is socially irresponsible - we have a duty to investigate these issues as a community, and see what people's opinions actually are. These issues are capable of affecting us all, and we all have a right to have our say on the issue.

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino
Eomer, your version of historomics amazes me. You have not seen mititarization until you research ancient Greek, Roman, Hun, Aztec, ancient Egyptian, and Persian empires. USSR does not even come close.

Several posts later and an invitation to prove his point…

First of all, how can you compare Rome with the US in terms of military intervention since the definition has changed from the times of the ancient world and now.

No, no I really know what Im talking about and I haven’t just back flipped on my position.

I guess the Soviet Union was just a charity club out to protect the world from the evil Satanists of America

That’s right, I agree with GeroMINo completely. Anyone who questions Americas history or motives are just being idiotic anti-americans and they should all be banned from Boards.

LMAO.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
That’s right, I agree with GeroMINo completely. Anyone who questions Americas history or motives are just being idiotic anti-americans and they should all be banned from Boards.

LMAO.

Sattire Vader, Satire on that last post. As I have said, I do not mind if you have specific arguments of policy from my country. And I might even agree with you; however, making gross generalizations like Eormer here (and I did post in that forum) simply does not work with me. As I have said, I have traelled many a miles and have experienced cultures vastly different from my own. Yet, I do not judge their culture nor their history even though at times it may or may not have "conflicted" with my country's history. This is especially true about Spain and Mexico toward my people.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
As I have said, I do not mind if you have specific arguments of policy from my country. And I might even agree with you; however, making gross generalizations like Eormer here (and I did post in that forum) simply does not work with me

This really is hilarious. A gross generalisation? HA! It wasn't me who said that 'you have never seen a militaistic society until you have lived in ancient times' - it was YOU! And you have yet to prove that statement - all you have done is say that you cannot compare the ancient and modern civilisations - which is PRECISELY what you did to argue with my post and I have referenced it perfectly in our history/heritage thread.

And still there is a deafening silence when it comes to specifice references in EITHER thread...it beggars belief that YOU questioned MY knowledge of MY area of expertise!

swiss

The topic of this thread is discussing the ethics of engineering new virus strains that could potentially be lethal to humans, even if doing so is to ostensibly protect us from terrorists who might be attempting to do the same thing. It is a far cry from that to discussing ancient militaristic societies. While trying to learn more about the environment (and society) in which this research is taking place is all very well and good in itself, we have to link it to the issue at hand, the ethics of responsibility for creating a bio agent with potentially destructive effects.

This is a warning to both Geromino and Éomer of Rohan.

a) Stay on topic.

b) No baiting and/or trolling. If something is apparant to you, do not automatically assume that everyone will agree.

c) While disagreements are bound to crop up, this level of petty bickering is quite childish. Éomer of Rohan, while I respect that your chosen field of study may give you extensive knowledge about ancient history, it is generally considered intellectually conceited to parade around those qualifications as if it somehow makes you a foremost authority on anything related with that field. Instead might I suggest that you try to cite exactly where you think Geromino is wrong, instead of bluntly asserting that you are right and he is wrong. (I don't want it done here however as it's off topic).

The same goes for Geromino, try to tone down the posts. Even though this can be an emotive issue, there is no need for this thread to be dragged off topic even more. Any more posts regarding ancient militaristic socities will be summarily deleted.

Now that that is (hopefully) sorted, on with the thread.

Geromino

Originally posted by mr_angry4
I still dont think you're getting my actual point. Here's my thinking, logically:

1. Mousepox was created out of scientific research into another deadly pox virus.
2. This happened accidentally, due to an unplanned genetic mutation which enabled the virus to jump species.
3. Had the research not developed the particular strain of pox before the mutation, in the first place, it is unlikely that the mutation would ever have taken place.
4. Scientists are still creating new and potentially deadly strains of pox viruses.
5. Such research is increasing the probability of another inter-species mutation happenning. If such a deadly strain was to mutate into a virus that infects humans, it could kill millions.

One point I am unclear on - how long did it take scientists to develop a treatment for mousepox, or have they done so at all? It certantly took them a long time anyway. Therefore, I find it unlikely that they could quickly develop a counter-agent for a mutated virus in the human genome. The consequences of such an accident are so serious, I believe the research to be unethical. Feel free to pick any holes in my logic, but don't spew random SARS facts at me. I think the reaction to SARS only highlights how devestating an outbreak would be.

Sorry for taking so long to reply. First, where your logic fails is at point #3. Someone will at some point in time make the strain. Knowledge is power when it comes to bio terror weapons. Second, you cannot be certain that the person or group that develops such a mutation will do it for noble causes, like trying to develop a resistant strain to smallppx, or try to use it for overt purposes like bio terror weapon. This is where I pointed out that scientists are inquisitive fellows and always wanting to expand the knowledge of science. It is the reason why we want go to space, why people dream of colonizing Mars or the Moon and other visualizing grand schemes. And that is why scientists try to get first the knowledge of trying to anticipate the deadliest diesease and find a cure. I do not know if I explained this well enough without involving pplitics, but I hope you will understand. Is it ethical? It is not as clear cut as one would imagine. What I want to know is the control proceedures set in place when this type of research is taking place and how the security of such research will be conducted. This is where the debate should be concentrated on when dealing with this type of research, not the grandiose vision of "ethical" or "not eithical." This definition would be based on the questions about control and security that i just described.

mr_angry

I see where you're coming from, but frankly, I still think you're wrong. If your only argument is "We should do it, because somebody else will anyway", then how could anything be unethical? You have to draw the line somewhere.

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
Sorry for taking so long to reply. First, where your logic fails is at point #3. Someone will at some point in time make the strain. Knowledge is power when it comes to bio terror weapons. Second, you cannot be certain that the person or group that develops such a mutation will do it for noble causes, like trying to develop a resistant strain to smallppx, or try to use it for overt purposes like bio terror weapon. This is where I pointed out that scientists are inquisitive fellows and always wanting to expand the knowledge of science. It is the reason why we want go to space, why people dream of colonizing Mars or the Moon and other visualizing grand schemes. And that is why scientists try to get first the knowledge of trying to anticipate the deadliest diesease and find a cure. I do not know if I explained this well enough without involving pplitics, but I hope you will understand. Is it ethical? It is not as clear cut as one would imagine. What I want to know is the control proceedures set in place when this type of research is taking place and how the security of such research will be conducted. This is where the debate should be concentrated on when dealing with this type of research, not the grandiose vision of "ethical" or "not eithical." This definition would be based on the questions about control and security that i just described.

I don't beleive you've proven your point. If it's deemed unethical then no one will create the before unseen disease and therefore no possibility of it mutating exists.
That someone will eventually create the disease is a huge assumption in my opinion.

Vader

Venturing slightly out of the area of bioterrorism, the moral Q of this thread is: "Is researching/developing a dangerous substance ethical even if that research is to be used to defend oneself?"

One cant guarentee who will get their hands on the substance/knowledge.
Nobody can tell the future or the extent to wich circumstances may change so when one says, America especially, we will never use this knowledge substance against others, they cant be trusted.

Geromino

Ethics in any hard science field asks two question:
1) What is the purpose of the research? and
2) What controls does one have in place of conducting the research?

When it comes to technology, the question is when the new knowledge will be obtained, not IF. Hence the reason for the first question. Scientists will have a purpose to the research, in this case, a scientist noted the short supply of small pox vaccines and the changing political climate of certain groups. The qestion the scientist put forth was to find new allternatives to a contageous virus that could be used as a weapon. If it could be used as a weapon, a raasonable conclusion would be that the virus will be manipulated into a new and deadly form. To help offset public panic from the unknown, a scientist wanted to develop new vaccines that could be used for the public against possible deadly alternatives. The first requirement was met in this scenario. Now, what controls would the scientist would use to make sure no one would be adversely affected if an accident occurs? What known strains could the scientist predict given known research? What alternative plans would the scientist have in place in case unknown strains emerge that effect either humans or animals or both?

This is the type of research path scientists take on [ANY] given research, but also applies to the dangerous or controlled substances that is known. You cannot simply put a stip to obtaining knowledge on this type of research because you are asking for technology advancement to obstain from progressing further. Bio ethics, by no means, have nice short, easy to fit into a box, type answers. It has never been that way and it will never be. This is the basis of my argument. Let the scientists who are experts to make the decisions and not the politicians. Politicians are only good at kissing babies and shaking hands.

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino
Ethics in any hard science field asks two question:
1) What is the purpose of the research? and
2) What controls does one have in place of conducting the research?

The purpose ot the research is to develope deadly weapons of mass destruction to see it it is possible to develope them and then to find a way of defending onesself from them.
As ive said before: One cant guarentee who will get their hands on those [WMDs]/knowledge.
Nobody can tell the future or the extent to wich circumstances may change so when one says, America especially, we will never use this knowledge substance against others, they cant be trusted.

Controls dont really have any bearing on the ethical nature of the research. They are imortant for obvious safety reasons but how is making a WMD, that has the potential to kill millions, in a controled enviroment anymore ethical than producing on in a secret lab in, oh lets say, Iraq?

Let the scientists who are experts to make the decisions and not the politicians. Politicians are only good at kissing babies and shaking hands. [/B]

That is what Im afraid of being the american mentality. Why bother going down political avenues for solving a dispute?
Why bother with the UN or international law? Lets just use our superior weapons.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
The purpose ot the research is to develope deadly weapons of mass destruction to see it it is possible to develope them and then to find a way of defending onesself from them.
As ive said before: One cant guarentee who will get their hands on those [WMDs]/knowledge.
Nobody can tell the future or the extent to wich circumstances may change so when one says, America especially, we will never use this knowledge substance against others, they cant be trusted.

Controls dont really have any bearing on the ethical nature of the research. They are imortant for obvious safety reasons but how is making a WMD, that has the potential to kill millions, in a controled enviroment anymore ethical than producing on in a secret lab in, oh lets say, Iraq?

The debate of whether it is ethical has more to do with publishing the work than developing the research. We already know that weaponizing smallpox could possibly be done given the right circumstances (in fact the Soviet Union already tried in the 1970's by Ken Alibek a former top scientsit in the Soviet Union's bioweapns program) and part of government preparation is to anticipate such actions given present circumstances. Buller's work replicated a similar work done in Australia, but developed specifically a anti-virus syrum to defeat the deadly strain. I simply do not see where you are getting that it was exclusively for WMD's. You also cannot simply say that this research is unethical because you do not know the unknown. That is pure science fiction and no scientist will attest to that supposition.

[BThat is what Im afraid of being the american mentality. Why bother going down political avenues for solving a dispute?
Why bother with the UN or international law? Lets just use our superior weapons. [/B]

I was thinking of the world's leading scientists to make the decision away from politics. Politics has a nasty habit of getting in the way for reasonable solutions. It should not come from any country or the UN. However, each country should make decisions on how one should protect itself from all types of weapons.

Vader

Bio weapons are extremely dangerous and so develping innoculations to combat these pathagens is an ethical and responsible goal.
My problem is that the US is creating new biological agents and viruses.The US is the only country developing new Bioweapons, so who are they protecting themselves from?
The US has in the past used nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.
They have used atom bombs, depleted uranium shells,agent orange, napalm, nerve gas and many more. But the one that really worries me and is relevent to this thread is that during the Iraq-Iran conflict the US gave Saddam bioweapons which he gleefully used. Yes the US had defences against these weapons which they gave to their soldiers during the first gulf war(actually I heard they had some nasty side-effects) but the Iranians didnt.

And so one has to be sceptical when answering your question:
Q"What is the purpose of the research? "
Ans: To give america an unfair military advantage which it is not afraid to use.
Q:Is that ethical?
Ans: Well how did you feel when it was claimed Saddam had his own program for developing bioweapons?

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Bio weapons are extremely dangerous and so develping innoculations to combat these pathagens is an ethical and responsible goal.
My problem is that the US is creating new biological agents and viruses.The US is the only country developing new Bioweapons, so who are they protecting themselves from?
The US has in the past used nuclear, biological and chemical warfare.
They have used atom bombs, depleted uranium shells,agent orange, napalm, nerve gas and many more. But the one that really worries me and is relevent to this thread is that during the Iraq-Iran conflict the US gave Saddam bioweapons which he gleefully used. Yes the US had defences against these weapons which they gave to their soldiers during the first gulf war(actually I heard they had some nasty side-effects) but the Iranians didnt.

And so one has to be sceptical when answering your question:
Q"What is the purpose of the research? "
Ans: To give america an unfair military advantage which it is not afraid to use.
Q:Is that ethical?
Ans: Well how did you feel when it was claimed Saddam had his own program for developing bioweapons?

If you think the US is the only country researching bioterror altermatives, then you are dead wrong (no pun intended).

Now, how does one get to develop anit-toxins to deadly diseases that are known and probably unknown. From what has been told to me, it first must have the deadly disease itself. This is the contradiction I find interesting when researchers develop anti-toxins, while at the same time, create new the toxins. This is also where controls come into place as to make sure that those who should not have access the toxins cannot obtain them. However, the main raason from what I can tell is that it is to be prepared for any attack. If the US is prepared from other biological attacks and have the antidotes, this will deter or more likely should deter any possible attack in the future.

Now, do you even know what the Iran-Iraq war was all about, Vader. Or do you prefer a dozen ME countries with Islamic Fundamentalism in the ME? As far as "evidence" of US helping Saddam, I have yet to seen one credible piece. I have seen great stories with "details" from third parties (heresay) and cited inuendo of supposition, but no actual evidence. Newspaper articles do not count as evidence and I do not care where the articles have come from (including the US). There is evidence that the US did give Saddam satellite intel on Iranian human waves, but even from FAS and a Sept 2002 Committee Report that only speculation existed, not actual evidence. There was one in which the US would give Egypt tanks and Egypt would then in turn give Iraq tanks.

As far as the Atomic Bomb, that happened in WWII and no one really knew of its full potential. Now, do you recall the U-234 incident where Germany sent its research to Japan. But after the war ended with Germany, the U-boat commander surredered and did not complete its mission. The two Japanese officers on board committed suicide. It isl also relevant that most experts at that time believed that the arms race for nuclear weapons ended after Nagaski.

mr_angry

When it comes to technology, the question is when the new knowledge will be obtained, not IF.

Again, that is a massive over-simplification, which totally ignores the entire IDEA of ethics! Why do scientists put ethical barriers in place at all? Because its not simply a case of "when".

For example, when I signed up to the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery), I had to sign an argreement, binding myself by the ACM's code of ethics. Without this, I would not have got access to the research of other members of the ACM. If you want to be respected in computing, you join the ACM or the IEEE, and if they don't allow you to do something, you don't do it. If you want to do research into something unethical, you cannot have access to the ACM's library, and thus to the relevant information. And nobody in the ACM can research unethical practices. These barriers ensure no unethical research is carried out. Its not a case of "when".

They are imortant for obvious safety reasons but how is making a WMD, that has the potential to kill millions, in a controled enviroment anymore ethical than producing on in a secret lab in, oh lets say, Iraq?

A good point, but I'd rather not get steeped in International politics. Iraq was invaded and its government overthrown because of their supposed WMDs (which have yet to be found). Why are the US allowed to develop them? Because they wont use them in warfare? Well, lets face it, thier history hardly backs that up. The US is allowed to, simply because nobody can stop them. Iraq isn't allowed to, because the US can stop them, and don't really like them. Isn't the world a wonderful place.

As far as "evidence" of US helping Saddam, I have yet to seen one credible piece.

You obviously haven't looked very hard. Since I don't have any to hand, and time is short, can somebody give this man some "credible" links? Thank you.

As far as the Atomic Bomb, that happened in WWII and no one really knew of its full potential.

Ah, I see. 18 tests in the Nevada desert weren't enough.

Geromino

Originally posted by mr_angry4
Again, that is a massive over-simplification, which totally ignores the entire IDEA of ethics! Why do scientists put ethical barriers in place at all? Because its not simply a case of "when".

For example, when I signed up to the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery), I had to sign an argreement, binding myself by the ACM's code of ethics. Without this, I would not have got access to the research of other members of the ACM. If you want to be respected in computing, you join the ACM or the IEEE, and if they don't allow you to do something, you don't do it. If you want to do research into something unethical, you cannot have access to the ACM's library, and thus to the relevant information. And nobody in the ACM can research unethical practices. These barriers ensure no unethical research is carried out. Its not a case of "when".

You are comparing apples and oranges. When you are dealing with life sciences, biochemistry, immunology, and other sciences, you have both the potential to do harm and to do good. This is why I gave the two part question in eithics in bioterrorism as I have interpreted. Here is an example of the ethics I am referring to.

You obviously haven't looked very hard. Since I don't have any to hand, and time is short, can somebody give this man some "credible" links? Thank you.

No, I have looked and saw tons of newspaper articles web sites who claim to have the "real truth." Most have involved third party knowledge and supposition, but no hard facts.

Ah, I see. 18 tests in the Nevada desert weren't enough.

And what do you think the Soviet Union was doing? Picking daisies!

sovtek

Originally posted by Geromino
And what do you think the Soviet Union was doing? Picking daisies!

[OFFTOPIC]
Who invented, tested and used this technology before the Soviet Union? [/OFFTOPIC]

Capt'n Midnight

NO

You can't put the genie back in the bottle.
ie. you can't uninvent something

There is the chance of accidental release - smallpox has been responsible for at least one death and suicide since it was eradicate (but there are still stocks held for "research")

then there is the star wars argument - if one side comes up with a vaccine to a disease then they can unleash it on the other or at least not worry about reprisals. The russians rightly considered the missile shield as being a prerequisite for a suprise attact.

Don't forget in the past the US have use smallpox on indians and tested syphalis on negros in the deep south in living memory. There are also allegations of testing bacterial dispersions over San Francisco..

Anyone ever see "The Satan Bug" ?

Vader

If newspapers dont count, then what about chomsky.
Wait a minute why dont newspapers count!!!!???
I believe the Indo, BBC, primetime and Chomsky. I just spent over an hour finding a reference for somthing else so I recommend this

Vader

#### Im after repling without reading 3 posts:(
Ill get back to yous

mr_angry

Here's a link to the CIA's actual plans for biowarfare defence. And I quote:

Traditional intelligence methods for monitoring development of weapons of mass destruction "could prove inadequate" in dealing with the threat from advanced biological weapons, the report said.

I believe what they're saying is - "Creating mad disaeases and then trying to find a cure wont work". So, why exactly are they still trying? It wont defend them from biowarfare attacks, so what sense does it make? Regardless of being unethical...