“Nature is a terrorist”
‘Nature
is a terrorist and we have to stay ahead’: US lifts ban on pandemic
pathogen tweaks
20
December, 2017
The
National Institutes of Health (NIH) has lifted a three-year
moratorium on civilian gain-of-function (GOF) research that enhances
the potency of pandemic pathogens such as SARS, the flu and Ebola.
“GOF
research is important in helping us identify, understand, and develop
strategies and effective countermeasures against rapidly evolving
pathogens that pose a threat to public health,” said NIH director
Francis S. Collins in a statement.
The
decision came after the Department of Health published a new review
process for such research, which includes an eight-point checklist
which evaluates whether making a particular germ more potent would be
beneficial, ethical, safe, and to determine if there are any
alternatives.
“I
am confident that the thoughtful review process laid out by the HHS
P3CO Framework will help to facilitate the safe, secure, and
responsible conduct of this type of research in a manner that
maximizes the benefits to public health,” said Collins.
The
2014 federal ban came as a result of controversy over prominent
cases; such as, when lab workers were exposed to anthrax, a facility
sent out virulent flu samples by mistake, as well as more widespread
laxities in the US research network.
Out
of the 21 projects frozen by the moratorium, 10 were allowed to go
ahead through an exemption, and the NIH hopes the updated process is
more systematic and avoids past lapses.
“I
believe nature is the ultimate bio-terrorist and we need to do all we
can to stay one step ahead,” said Sam Stanley, President of Stony
Brook University and chairman of the National Science Advisory Board
for Biosecurity which helped develop the framework. “Basic research
on these agents by laboratories that have shown they can do this work
safely is key to global security,” he said in an email to the
media.
‘Accident
after accident result of human error’
However,
a large proportion of the scientific community remains skeptical of
both the usefulness and safety of GOF research, which, by its very
nature, tries to second-guess how pathogens could behave in the real
world.
“The
engineering is not what I’m worried about. Accident after accident
has been the result of human mistakes,” said Marc Lipsitch of
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who has published research
claiming the dangers of a lab-manufactured pandemic are
underestimated by vested parties.
He
said the formalized nature of the new framework was a “step
forward,” but noted that previous germ-tinkering studies “have
given us some modest scientific knowledge and done almost nothing to
improve our preparedness for pandemics, and yet risked creating an
accidental pandemic.”
Michael
T. Osterholm, Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research
and Policy at the University of Minnesota, told the media that a germ
doesn’t even have to leave the lab to become dangerous. The
research alone could get into the wrong hands, and should be
partially classified, Osterholm cautioned.
“If someone finds a way to make the Ebola virus more dangerous, I don’t believe that should be available to anybody off the street who could use it for nefarious purposes,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.