Just when I think we can't possibly make any more amazingly stupid decisions on this planet, there we go again
In this administration stupid is the norm. Haven't you noticed?
I'm anti-Trump as can be, but I'd suspect this moratorium was always intended to be temporary while the protocols to protect us from accidents were checked and revised if necessary. There's genuine merit to understanding what makes a virus vary in lethality and how to combat that.
There's plenty of things to bash this administration on. I don't think this is one of them.
Now, I don't want to seem anti-science or anything, but this seems like a massive disaster just waiting to happen, in light of the incidents that led to this ban and also, even more to the point, the 2001 anthrax attacks.[1] Couldn't they at least restrict this research to labs far away from major population centers? The analogue with software development, I'd say, is when people periodically point out that nuclear p…
It's possible that it's very difficult to engineer a virus that can do better than anything nature has come up with. Evolution has had billions of years to try all the attack vectors. A worst case 12 Monkeys-style disaster seems unlikely. But I'm ignorant of this topic. Without handwaving or pointing at the worst case, how much should we worry? Is there any evidence that a genetically enhanced virus can be devastatin…
Your first sentence is true, but ignores the fact that scientists aren't creating viruses from scratch. They are using what nature made and modifying it. Many treatments rely on a viruses ability penetrate cells. Why recreate what already works so well?
The intention seems legit, despite the concern. Quote from the article: The pathogen to be modified must pose a serious health threat, and the work must produce knowledge — such as a vaccine — that would benefit humans. Finally, there must be no safer way to do the research.
Also, it's regulated and overseen by a review board: > "Now, a government panel will require that researchers show that their studies in this area are scientifically sound and that they will be done in a high-security lab." It does sound like there are concerns. I'm glad that people are keeping their eyes on it. I found this quote interesting as well, regarding publishing the results of such research: > “Physicists l…
The problem with the US keeping their eyes on it is that you can't trust them. All you need is a few lobbyists and rules and regulations seem to be just words. Hell, Net Neutrality had plenty of people "keeping their eyes on it" too.
In this administration stupid is the norm. Haven't you noticed?
I'm anti-Trump as can be, but I'd suspect this moratorium was always intended to be temporary while the protocols to protect us from accidents were checked and revised if necessary. There's genuine merit to understanding what makes a virus vary in lethality and how to combat that. There's plenty of things to bash this administration on. I don't think this is one of them.
Maybe your right. Keeping up with all the things they throw out on a daily basis is tiresome, and I don't have time to research all of them.
Now, I don't want to seem anti-science or anything, but this seems like a massive disaster just waiting to happen, in light of the incidents that led to this ban and also, even more to the point, the 2001 anthrax attacks.[1] Couldn't they at least restrict this research to labs far away from major population centers? The analogue with software development, I'd say, is when people periodically point out that nuclear p…
It's possible that it's very difficult to engineer a virus that can do better than anything nature has come up with. Evolution has had billions of years to try all the attack vectors. A worst case 12 Monkeys-style disaster seems unlikely. But I'm ignorant of this topic. Without handwaving or pointing at the worst case, how much should we worry? Is there any evidence that a genetically enhanced virus can be devastatin…
I believe there is reason for concern w.r.t. modifications of flu viruses, for one thing. That is, they know what makes flu easily transmissible among humans, and they know a bit about how to alter nontransmissible viruses to be more so. Given the belief that things like the 1918 flu are believed to be viruses that made this jump on their own, it's quite reasonable to worry that we could do it in a lab.
Now, I don't want to seem anti-science or anything, but this seems like a massive disaster just waiting to happen, in light of the incidents that led to this ban and also, even more to the point, the 2001 anthrax attacks.[1] Couldn't they at least restrict this research to labs far away from major population centers? The analogue with software development, I'd say, is when people periodically point out that nuclear p…
It's possible that it's very difficult to engineer a virus that can do better than anything nature has come up with. Evolution has had billions of years to try all the attack vectors. A worst case 12 Monkeys-style disaster seems unlikely. But I'm ignorant of this topic. Without handwaving or pointing at the worst case, how much should we worry? Is there any evidence that a genetically enhanced virus can be devastatin…
> It's possible that it's very difficult to engineer a virus that can do better than anything nature has come up with. Evolution has had billions of years to try all the attack vectors.
The traits desired in a bioweapon aren't particularly beneficial to the long-term propagation of a viral strain and thus would be selected against, or at least not selected for, by natural processes.
Now, I don't want to seem anti-science or anything, but this seems like a massive disaster just waiting to happen, in light of the incidents that led to this ban and also, even more to the point, the 2001 anthrax attacks.[1] Couldn't they at least restrict this research to labs far away from major population centers? The analogue with software development, I'd say, is when people periodically point out that nuclear p…
It's possible that it's very difficult to engineer a virus that can do better than anything nature has come up with. Evolution has had billions of years to try all the attack vectors. A worst case 12 Monkeys-style disaster seems unlikely. But I'm ignorant of this topic. Without handwaving or pointing at the worst case, how much should we worry? Is there any evidence that a genetically enhanced virus can be devastatin…
Maybe.
Evolution selects for virulence, not death toll. After all, your hosts can't spread you if they're dead.
Also, it's regulated and overseen by a review board: > "Now, a government panel will require that researchers show that their studies in this area are scientifically sound and that they will be done in a high-security lab." It does sound like there are concerns. I'm glad that people are keeping their eyes on it. I found this quote interesting as well, regarding publishing the results of such research: > “Physicists l…
The problem with the US keeping their eyes on it is that you can't trust them. All you need is a few lobbyists and rules and regulations seem to be just words. Hell, Net Neutrality had plenty of people "keeping their eyes on it" too.
You're right that that can be an issue, and one raised in the article. I intended that particular phrase (which admittedly could have been written better) to mean that others outside of the government are watching the process, such as those commenting in the article. Definitely room for improvement, but I don't think this is something that's being done lightly. This whole thing concerns me, but like with many such topics, it's often more complicated than what is summed up in the headline.