Kawaoka's team delved into the H5N1 strain of avian flu, which caused a health scare in Hong Kong in 1997 and still surfaces sporadically today.So, the controversy is over whether publishing the reports of the research will constitute a health risk from terrorist groups following the information provided to create a super virus pandemic.
H5N1 spreads easily among poultry and wild birds but is hard to transmit to humans. When it does, it is brutal, killing more than one infected person in two.
Nature showed journalists a report from "a bio-defence agency outside the US", which it declined to name, that said the benefits of publication outweighed the risks.
"This information could be used by an aggressor and shows one of the building blocks for the development of a potential BW [biowarfare] weapon," the report said.
"[Such skill] is a demanding capability, probably beyond the capacity of the majority of those groupings of concern," it said.
"On the other hand, not publishing this information would slow, or even block, the development of a vaccine against a virus that still has the potential to mutate naturally to a pandemic form, which could cause huge numbers of fatalities worldwide."
Touching on the tension between freedom of expression and scientific responsibility, Nature said it was "desirable" to have a forum such as NSABB but in this case the panel had over-reacted.
"There are justified concerns among the research community about the NSABB's processes, and these processes should be reviewed."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. I look forward to reading them. Please visit Running Rabbit Roundup again soon.