

US asks journals not to publish flu virus research to keep info from terrorists - dctoedt
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45749145

======
CWuestefeld
This seems like a bad idea. At the same time we're (hopefully!) keeping the
information away from the bad guys, we're also handicapping those who could be
building us protection from it.

 _the journal was taking the recommendations seriously and would probably
withhold some information — but only if the government creates a system to
provide the missing information to legitimate scientists worldwide who need
it._

I'm concerned with how they might determine who is "legitimate", and who
"needs it".

And beyond that, it seems silly to try to protect in this way. I've got to
believe that anyone skilled enough to be able to use the information would
also be skilled enough to get himself onto the staff of a "legitimate"
researcher, thereby getting the information.

~~~
pragmatic
You assume of course that this research leads to a vaccine that's 100%
effective and distributed to the entire population of the planet.

You miss the point that some people can't have the flu vaccine because of auto
immune disease susceptibility. Also X percent of the population will not get
the vaccination for other reasons.

So this is more like [Sophos|Symantec|Kaspersky] creating a super Windows
virus then offering to print the source code in order to "further" research.

Just like with nuclear technology, we can't put this genie back in the bottle.

Just because we can do something, does that always mean we should?

~~~
CWuestefeld
_You assume of course that this research leads to a vaccine that's 100%
effective and distributed to the entire population of the planet._

No, this is not correct. As I explained elsewhere in the thread where you made
the same claim:

A vaccine can effectively stop a virus with far fewer than 100% actually
receiving the vaccination.

First, depending on the type of vaccine, the immunity may be communicated to
other people through contact. Other people in the household, work, school,
etc. are contaminated with the attenuated virus (in such a vaccination, as
with the Salk polio virus).

Second, with a sufficient portion of the population immune, they act as
firebreaks interfering with the transmission of the virus through the
population. This is called "Herd Immunity" [1]. According to the linked
article, for example, smallpox is effectively stopped with 83%-85% of the
community vaccinated.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity>

------
hackinthebochs
I don't see the problem here. Information, just like everything else, can be
used as a weapon. Some information needs to be kept out of the hands of people
who aren't responsible enough to use it. This is standard practice with other
things.

The knee-jerk reactions against "censorship" in this case doesn't make sense.
From what I've gathered from other articles about this research is that it
basically lays out a procedure to take bird flu and turn it into a potential
pandemic-causing virus. And we're not talking highly controlled lab
experiments here, this is something that a rag-tag group could do in a regular
building (again, from what I've inferred).

The potential downside to having this information freely available far
outweighs the benefits. Any legitimate research group will surely be able to
get their hands on the information.

------
redthrowaway
If terrorists have the ability to bioengineer and deliver viruses, then I'm
thinking published research is the least of our worries. It would be like
keeping information on how to increase the yield of a thermonuclear warhead
from 5MT to 10MT secret: if that's a concern, we're already hooped.

~~~
jarin
I don't know if there's a name for it, but this is kind of like "security by
obscurity". I'm not sure I would just make the assumption that there's no
possible way a terrorist group can engineer a virus capable of killing half
the world's population and call it good. For example, it's entirely possible
that the terrorist organization could kidnap researchers and force them to do
it.

~~~
redthrowaway
If kidnapping researchers and forcing them to do it is an issue, why wouldn't
they just kidnap the people who did this study?

We aren't talking about a bond villain, here. We're talking about largely
uneducated Arab peasants who are perfectly capable of firing an RPG-7 or an
AK-47, or strapping on an explosive vest and blowing themselves up, but little
else. There's no evidence they're even making their own PETN, which is far
easier than engineering a virus. In fact, instructions for the manufacture of
PETN, and the constituent components thereof, are freely available.

The rush to ascribe fantastical abilities to terrorists has led to the
introduction of some pretty draconian laws. Given that bathtubs kill more
Americans than do terrorists, let's lay of the doomsdaying, shall we?

------
remyroy
Let's start a war on information because war is peace and information is the
cause for thoughtcrime.

Orwell's timing was wrong but close enough in my book.

~~~
andar
To me, it's as if 1984 were the past few decades' events and attitudes
condensed into a few weeks.

------
ig1
What precisely stops a member of a legitimate research group also being a
terrorist ?

Or a rogue government which probably has the ability to reproduce to the
research relatively easily from doing so and providing the information to a
terrorist group.

If someone wanted to commit an act of viral terrorism they would have done so
by now, there are already plenty of dangerous viruses and hybrids in research
labs all around the world, most of which have close to zero security.

I think the biggest thing that protects us again viral terrorism is that
terrorists aren't crazy enough to use any kind of untargeted weapon.

Probably the most famous act of terrorism in british history - the gunpowder
plot of 1605 was stopped because one of the conspirators tipped of a member of
their family.

Terrorists don't want to do something that could well kill the supporters of
their own cause or their families.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
> _Terrorists don't want to do something that could well kill the supporters
> of their own cause or their families._

That's right.

Insane people, OTOH, have no such restraints. That's what worries me more than
any "terrorist" attack. I think we're paying too much attention to
"terrorism", blinded as we are by the glare of media. But it's getting more
and more easy for some doomsday cultist, sane enough to be able to perform
basic engineering tasks, but insane enough to dream of a DIY Armageddon, to
make those dreams (or, rather, nightmares) come true.

Even so, I'm still not sure whether withholding information is always good
policy. Maybe it is - maybe a slight delay until defenses are built might be
beneficial.

~~~
ig1
The odds of a crazy person unleashing a deadly virus upon the world are
probably relatively low maybe 1 in a million.

The odds of a random mutation unleashing deadly virus upon the world are
probably close to 1.

It's amazing how quickly people have forgotten about the 1918 flu epidemic. It
killed around 75 million people and infected more than a quarter of the
world's population.

We're going to have another virus epidemic of that proportion, it's a question
of when rather than if. We should be building defences because of the risk of
random mutations and not because of the risk of engineered viruses.

~~~
Florin_Andrei
Good point.

------
simonsarris
I took a class in college on Bioterrorism. (Literally, the class was just
named "Bioterrorism")

The U.S. used to be big into researching biological weapons until they found
that it was far too easy and cheap to build them compared to other weapons of
mass destruction (such as nuclear weapons).

Therefore they nearly stopped all biological weapon research merely because it
would be too easy for poorer countries (or terrorists) to make those types of
weapons.

That approach was very reasonable: It is in the United State's best interest
if the only weapons of mass destruction are very expensive to make. I imagine
at least some of the reasoning here is a carryover of this. So I highly doubt
when they say:

> For the first time ever, a government advisory board is asking scientific
> journals not to publish details of certain biomedical experiments, for fear
> ...

That this is the first time. This is just probably a much more visible (and
perhaps more ridiculous than usual) example.

------
pygy_
Even though the mutations required to get a h5n1 virus contagious between
humans haven't been published, the process to generate them has been, and it
is trivial to duplicate.

H5N1 in the hands of "bad" people is a matter of weeks or perhaps months
(provided they have ferrets and the aviary strain of h5n1).

------
jballanc
Funding to biomedical research in the US has been essentially flat since 2001.
First, it was a downturn in the economy. Then, it was largely driven by a
president who questioned evolution and an administration that was outright
hostile toward science. Then, it was a downturn in the economy and a rising
national debt.

Refusing to increase funding to biomedical research is a side-long way to
slowly kill scientific progress in America. This, on the other hand, is
irrational fear leading directly to the stifling of science in America.

I think it's fairly clear now, if it wasn't before, that America has lost its
lead in scientific progress. I wonder how most Americans will feel when they
finally realize that some other country is more technically advanced? Will the
added sense of "safety" have been worth it?

------
brudgers
The cynic in me is unconvinced that this is not a in part motivated by some
portion of the US government wanting to keep its edge in regard to bioweaponry
rather than a general concern about weaponization.

As others note, if they have the virus and the labs to weaponize it, they are
probably a government.

------
billpatrianakos
The idea that you'd need to keep this information from terrorists is
laughable. They want you to picture highly trained and organized militia type
groups who are actually competent enough to pull off any sort of attack.

Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with terrorists. This is all about
trying to keep this information under wraps so they can be the ones who make
it a biological weapon that they can hold over the heads of any country who
they perceive as threatening.

Terrorist organizations for the most part aren't half as fearsome as the US
government want you to believe. Their more akin to street gangs than the
organized, resourceful group they want you to imagine. And in the rare case
that a terrorist group is capable of weaponizing the flu, some law enforcement
agency will most likely have the jump on them before they can execute.

I'm not saying it can't happen, I'm just saying the chances are slim and, more
importantly, their reason for pushing secrecy is most likely not the true
reason.

~~~
zotz
> Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with terrorists.

Anytime some government agency does something for our own good or "for the
kids", run for your lives.

------
moheeb
Isn't this like the evening news not giving the recipe for meth away every
night?

Nobody really complains about that.

------
angelbob
_"I wouldn’t call this censorship," Dr. Alberts said. "This is trying to avoid
inappropriate censorship."_

Wow. So he thinks that if they don't self-censor, the government will censor
for them... And that that makes it not censorship?

Ouch.

