In a letter published in the journals Nature and Science on Friday, 39 scientists defended the research as crucial to public health efforts, including surveillance programs to detect when the H5N1 influenza virus might mutate and spark a pandemic.
But they are bowing to fear that has become widespread since media reports discussed the studies in December that the engineered viruses "may escape from the laboratories" -- not unlike the frightful scenario in the 1971 science fiction movie "The Andromeda Strain" -- or possibly be used to create a bioterror weapon.
Among the scientists who signed the letter were leaders of the two teams that have spearheaded the research, at Erasmus Medical College in the Netherlands and the University of Wisconsin, Madison, as well as influenza experts at institutions ranging from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the University of Hong Kong.
The findings from Fouchier's lab and another at the University of Wisconsin set off alarms for the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which made the recommendation in December that details of the experiments be redacted from publications.
The journals and study authors have agreed to do this if a system is put in place for research information to be shared with scientists and public health workers who need it.
Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota and a member of the biosecurity advisory board, said that even though the science was useful, the virus could potentially escape lab containment by accident.
"You have to look at the risk-benefit ratio," Osterholm said.
Fouchier and coauthors wrote in the letter that they recognized the need to clearly explain the benefits of their research to a worried public. They called for an international forum where the scientific community could discuss the oversight of such high-security experiments and the potential risks as well as the benefits.
Osterholm said he doubted that two months would be long enough to come to a clear consensus.
"This is a very positive step forward in trying to have a very thoughtful and global discussion on this issue," he said. But, he added, "It's still quite optimistic to think that this all can be resolved in 60 days.
But they are bowing to fear that has become widespread since media reports discussed the studies in December that the engineered viruses "may escape from the laboratories" -- not unlike the frightful scenario in the 1971 science fiction movie "The Andromeda Strain" -- or possibly be used to create a bioterror weapon.
Among the scientists who signed the letter were leaders of the two teams that have spearheaded the research, at Erasmus Medical College in the Netherlands and the University of Wisconsin, Madison, as well as influenza experts at institutions ranging from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to the University of Hong Kong.
The findings from Fouchier's lab and another at the University of Wisconsin set off alarms for the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which made the recommendation in December that details of the experiments be redacted from publications.
The journals and study authors have agreed to do this if a system is put in place for research information to be shared with scientists and public health workers who need it.
Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota and a member of the biosecurity advisory board, said that even though the science was useful, the virus could potentially escape lab containment by accident.
"You have to look at the risk-benefit ratio," Osterholm said.
Fouchier and coauthors wrote in the letter that they recognized the need to clearly explain the benefits of their research to a worried public. They called for an international forum where the scientific community could discuss the oversight of such high-security experiments and the potential risks as well as the benefits.
Osterholm said he doubted that two months would be long enough to come to a clear consensus.
"This is a very positive step forward in trying to have a very thoughtful and global discussion on this issue," he said. But, he added, "It's still quite optimistic to think that this all can be resolved in 60 days.
No comments:
Post a Comment