

Computer Scientist Creates Kill-Switch for Biological Viruses - dconway
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/todd-rider-has-a-kill-switch-for-viruses-11032011.html

======
mattdeboard
> _For his PhD thesis, he proved that a working hot fusion reactor would
> either consume more energy than it generates or spew as much radiation as
> existing nuclear power plants—a finding that did not endear him to many
> physicists and cut off some career options._

The science field doesn't really work like this, does it? You'd think if he
definitively proved a particular thing there wouldn't be any animosity about
it toward HIM. I can understand being pissed your funding gets cut off and
irritated a thing you've been pursuing for years turns out to be a wild goose
chase. But are the punitive measures alluded to in that last paragraph normal?

edit: Also wouldn't a "kill switch" be counterproductive with flu and other
environmentally persistant diseases? Isn't the point of vaccinations that we
train our body to fight the disease? I suppose in emergency situations you'd
want to kill the virus outright, but I don't think being able to kill an
arbitrary viral outbreak excludes the need for vaccinations and other public
health programs.

~~~
mquander
Oh, you mean the sentence about how the eccentric scientist has been
persecuted by the establishment for his contrarian work?

To me, that sounds so much like the output of a journalist's nearest-cliche
algorithm that it's impossible to say whether there's any truth in it, or how
much.

~~~
pak
Thank you. Sometimes I wish journalists writing about scientists were subject
to the same peer-review process that scientists are. E.g.,

 _"One binds to viral double-stranded ribonucleic acid, a type of molecule
found in all viruses."_

Goddamnit, no it isn't
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Baltimore_classification>). Some viruses
contain DNA, not RNA, in the capsid. The proposed treatment acts on dsRNA made
after the virus has entered the cell, and the only hope of it working on DNA
viruses is if sufficient dsRNA is produced during transcription of the viral
genome (I'm not convinced—the citations for this in Rider's paper are weak).

------
wccrawford
"By splicing jellyfish genes into white blood cells—nature’s front line
against viral invaders—he created a biological sensor that glows in the
presence of disease."

That is so awesome. :D

~~~
sagarm
The "jellyfish genes" in question are probably GFP[1] (Green fluorescent
protein), which has been spliced into many organisms. You can even buy fish
with the gene[2].

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_fluorescent_protein> [2]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GloFish>

------
epenn
_For his PhD thesis, he proved that a working hot fusion reactor would either
consume more energy than it generates or spew as much radiation as existing
nuclear power plants—a finding that did not endear him to many physicists and
cut off some career options._

This is a bit of a tangent, but I admire anyone willing to follow through on
what the facts tell them rather than switch gears in order to ensure better
career mobility.

------
alexholehouse
The science was previously posted here -
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2847675> (extensive relevant discussion
included).

I think the biographical info here is fascinating though!

------
ridruejo
Forget the virus kill switch, what I found fascinating from the article were
his accomplishments. Usually a lot of great things come out of the
intersection of deep knowledge from two different fields (say, medicine and
software). If you combine EE, CS, Physics and Biology, well, it is pretty
awesome.

------
kky
We don't know of any viruses that are directly beneficial to the human body,
as we know of beneficial bacteria; so it's an amazing idea.

On the other hand, Nathan Wolfe <http://www.gvfi.org/wolfe/> , virus expert,
believes that if all viruses were wiped out, humanity would not last long at
all. If this drug were excreted or discarded into water supplies, we may begin
destroying our viral population, with unintended effect.

Still, leads one to wonder what more highly targeted applications could be
created. Parasites, specific bacteria, etc. Exciting times.

------
ern
Here's the paper:
[http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0022572)

------
Roboprog
Something that is not explicitly stated in the article, other than "virus
kills the host cells, anyway", is that the drug works by finding host cells
containing viral (specific) RNA, and then killing the host cells (I assume
apoptosis means rupturing lysosomes - digestive enzyme packets).

The article mentions the two active "tags" and what they do, but not the
context and effect: kill infected cells to stop further infection.

~~~
andar
The article does state that, "The drug acts like a homing missile that seeks
out and kills cells infected by a virus."

------
delinka
"It appears to have few negative consequences..."

I invoke the law of unintended consequences. A fine example would be "so sorry
it killed test subject 1337, apparently that particular genetic mutation in
his DNA looked like a disease."

~~~
colanderman
Yes, I truly hope that these proteins _do_ work as intended, but a part of me
thinks "what about obscure virus X, which is capable of easily infecting most
cells in a body but doesn't exhibit any negative effects on health?" If such a
virus existed then these proteins, administered in significant enough amounts,
would kill a person infected with virus X.

~~~
curt
Nah you would be given a dosage large enough just to kill the invading virus.
It could hurt the person, but killing them is unlikely. Actually wrote a paper
on a something similar I came up with back in undergrad using HIV.

~~~
delinka
I don't follow that logic. Sure, it stands to reason that _if_ the drug can
only kill infected cells, and the human hasn't already lost enough cells to
kill them, then the drug won't kill the human.

But let's suppose that you can't measure in advance the number of cells that
are infected, nor can the drug actually tell the difference between infected
and not-infected cells (due to the aforementioned genetic abnormality.) What
happens when the drug kills too many normal cells? The human dies.

~~~
curt
My point was that there are so many more healthy cells vs infected cells
except on rare instances that even it kills healthy cells too they are far
larger in number. Just like what happens during radiation treatments or any
number of other treatments.

Still it would likely be a staged treatment that wouldn't kill the entirety of
infected cells in a single dosage. The benefit is that you could see if there
were adverse reacts before continuing.

~~~
delinka
Now that I think about it, it's much more like chemotherapy. Which does cause
terrible side effects by affecting the entire body and not just cancer cells.

Radiation is targeted and not administered 'generally' like a drug would be.
If you could aim drugs, chemotherapy would likely change drastically.

------
FreebytesSector
The ability to eradicate numerous diseases may be one of the greatest
achievements of mankind. I do not think this story is one to be overlooked if
his achievements are applicable to humans.

------
theshadow
This is how almost every movie about an apocalyptic mass pandemic starts.

------
Apocryphon
He sounds like a Feynman in formation.

