quote:

---

Scientists have recreated the 1918 Spanish flu virus, one of the deadliest ever to emerge...The genetic sequence is also being made available to scientists online...Publication of the work and the filing of the virus's genetic make-up to an online database followed an emergency meeting last week by the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity, which concluded that the benefits of publishing the work outweighed the risks. Many scientists remained sceptical. ``Once the genetic sequence is publicly available, there's a risk that any molecular biologist with sufficient knowledge could recreate this virus,'' said Dr. John Wood of the Institute for Biological Standards in Potters Bar, U.K.

---

news article

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, right? Every advancement requires some form of risk, but at what point does the risk outweigh the potential benefits? Is the risk being overstated or understated? And should the community get to have a say as to whether these "risky" activities take place in their back yards?
 

---

Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
 
I don't see much problem with recreating and storing the virus. There are already plenty of very nasty viruses stored in government facilities in the US, so what's one more?

But putting the genetic sequence for it in an online database seems more risky, when there are certainly other ways to get the information to scientists who would have a legitimate use for it. The article didn't really say, but this database isn't totally public, right? It's not something we could just google for, I hope.

--Enigmatic
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
My understanding is that it is not a risk to today's population because we have antibiotics that kill the virus. It's not an antibiotic resistant strain.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I thought antibiotics didn't work on viruses.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
I dunno. I heard it on the radio when they were talking about it, and that's what they said. And since it was on the news, it must be true, you know.

at myself

edit: though it could be they meant secondary infections, which is usually what I understood to cause the deaths, not the virus itself. But I dunno. It was just a soundbite.
 

---

Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
 
Antibiotics are useless against viruses. Antivirals exist, but in the case of HIV or Herpes, antivirals only stall a virus or place it into remission. Shingles is Varicella like chicken pox, which we also never get rid of, but rather our body wall the virus off, and thereby contains it.

In the case of serious viruses, the best hope is an immunization. But some viral strains are very difficult or impossible to formulate due to mutations etc...
 

---

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
 
...when you've made yourself ruler of the entire northern hemisphere, in every game you've played.


(and I'm the first one to pull that joke? come on folks, y'all are slacking. )

--j_k
 

---

Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
 
Its in GenBank, which you can search here.

Although it looks like these specific entries are not currently available (give them a little time and they should be).
 

---

Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
...when you've made yourself ruler of the entire northern hemisphere, in every game you've played.


(and I'm the first one to pull that joke? come on folks, y'all are slacking. )

--j_k

---

I was thinking about it. But yes, I was slacking
 

---