71–80 of 131 posts
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.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
You know how when you watch movies and because you know so much about tech you can tell that most of the stuff done in movies regarding hacking etc is bullshit and not real. Now I have a lack in knowledge of biology at this level, but can someone maybe explain to me how all those disease mass extinction movies cannot be real? I feel like my lack of knowledge here causes my concerns when reading stuff like this articl…
Ebola is one such virus. In terms of evolution these viruses tend to burn out by killing the host. Evolutionary pressures push viruses towards symbiotic equilibrium. Thus in the worst case scenario there will be survivors who are immune or the virus or the virus will burn out until the only strain left does not harm humans. The later was the case with ebola.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't heard anything about continued leaking. Any sources on that? Googling turns up nothing besides the sheep incident.
Not sure I want to Google "where is US military nerve gas stockpiled?"
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.
I mean, even if the intention was to create a bioweapon to use in war, you would think the work would still fit those two parameters. And how do you know the work will 'produce knowledge?' A vaccine is impossible to guarantee.
So a bioweapon might not satisfy this criteria. Besides it probably violates other laws, and is thus still illegal.
You know how when you watch movies and because you know so much about tech you can tell that most of the stuff done in movies regarding hacking etc is bullshit and not real. Now I have a lack in knowledge of biology at this level, but can someone maybe explain to me how all those disease mass extinction movies cannot be real? I feel like my lack of knowledge here causes my concerns when reading stuff like this articl…
Ebola is one such virus. In terms of evolution these viruses tend to burn out by killing the host. Evolutionary pressures push viruses towards symbiotic equilibrium. Thus in the worst case scenario there will be survivors who are immune or the virus or the virus will burn out until the only strain left does not harm humans. The later was the case with ebola.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-31982078
All it will take for Ebola to be a truly massive killer is a small mutation that would reduce immediate mortality or that would increase the incubation time. Either one of those would greatly increase the number of people that a single outbreak would affect. I'd rather not have to live through that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ebola is one such virus. In terms of evolution these viruses tend to burn out by killing the host. Evolutionary pressures push viruses towards symbiotic equilibrium. Thus in the worst case scenario there will be survivors who are immune or the virus or the virus will burn out until the only strain left does not harm humans. The later was the case with ebola.
It sure killed a LOT of people in the process though, so I wouldn't say that that's quite so reassuring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their criticism wasn't of the law but of the undue influence of lobbyists in the American political system.
If you "cannot trust regulators or legislators at the federal level" how can you trust the laws? Who writes them, and who enforces them, if not legislators and regulators, respectively?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Journalism is dead, deal with it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe. Evolution selects for virulence, not death toll. After all, your hosts can't spread you if they're dead.
> After all, your hosts can't spread you if they're dead Arguable. Dead bodies can and do spread disease.