Weapons research quietly marches on.

In My Humble Opinion
21

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
If it is present in all flu pandemics, doesn’t that just mean studying any flu virus would do? Once again, even the experts say that the 1918 virus is not unique in this regard. It is unique in its proven danger to the world.

I also have trouble believing that research is going to focus on cytokine storms even if it is verified by this research. It means one research group is going to study it, and the benefit to society would be the same.
[/QUOTE]
No, it doesn’t mean that any flu virus would do. Rather than go into an extensively-cited, detailed post that still won’t explain the subject to your satisfaction, I’m going to suggest that you educate yourself on the topic of virology–I recommend this text as an excellent introduction–before continuing to criticize the researchers and knowledgable people here on a topic about which you have only a rudimentary understanding.

Stranger

22

It should probably also be pointed out that several medium sized universities have nuclear reactors.

As the others have said, the risk isn’t in the technology. In the modern age, pretty much anyone with a degree in the hard sciences could tell you how to make a weapon of at least mass terror, if not mass destruction. But even though you have to assume that at least one of them is luny, you never see much actually hit the streets simply because it requires a big budget, a lot of testing, multiple scientists, plus a high-quality factory to create enough of the materials to accomplish anything.

23

My understanding is that the Spanish Flu virus of 1918 did exist, sort of.
They got samples from frozen corpses and most memorably from the lead sealed coffin of a young woman in the UK.

I’ve discussed this with a friend of mine who is a pretty senior scientist in the UK Government’s flu vaccine program (actually the vaccines are pretty much an international effort).

The general idea is that they have long been worried about a really nasty strain of flu developing, we have had a series of outbreaks and the smart money is on another strain turning up. They are/were also worried that H5N1 might the one. They certainly thought that the 1918 variant was avian.

It makes perfect sense finding out about the structure of the 1918 strain, for a start to isolate its weaknesses and also to compare it with the other samples that come in.

I doubt that they really reconstructed the virus, more isolated it from the fragments.

When dealing with really dangerous stuff they are very careful, scientists don’t like dying. They even go to the extent of constructing special isolated laborotories that they completely destroy afterwards.

These things could be weoponized, and almost certainly most major powers have had a go (I remember a Green Monkey disease scare in about 1980).

However, there are compelling reasons for conducting benign civilian research, more accurately, with what is known about flu, it would be irresponsible not to find out how it ticks.

24

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
The article gives as its source “University of Wisconson-Madison.” It was led by a faculty member of that institution, although it was based on work conducted in Canada. So much for my “gross misrepresentation” of the source. This kind of nitpicking ignores the point of my OP entirely, and offers nothing. Yes, I ignored it in my next post. I shall ignore it hereafter.
[/quote]

Nice try. Your gross misrepresentation is in equating this important biomedical research with weapons research. They aren’t one and the same, and the process of doing the former does not lead inevitably and inexorably to the latter.

You may not have liked the comment, but it doesn’t justify your largely ignoring the subsequent info that I or anyone else in this thread have provided, in favor of a frankly unsupportable viewpoint. No one here is saying that research on potentially deadly viruses carries no risk, but what they are saying - and you refuse to accept - is that there are benefits that outweigh the risks here, and the effort out into reducing the risk is much greater than you seem to think.

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
I also have trouble believing that research is going to focus on cytokine storms even if it is verified by this research. It means one research group is going to study it, and the benefit to society would be the same.
[/QUOTE]

Why do you have trouble believing it? Please do me the courtesy of answering this question.

And here also you reveal an unfamiliarity with how scientific research is conducted. It may well be that the group working in Canada is the only group with sufficient amount of the Spanish flu virus to research the details of its form and effects. However, the outcome of their research informs other groups working on similar (/= same!) kinds of virus that appear to cause health problems via the same mechanism. In aggregate the results of each group’s work can lead to a better understanding of how that mechanism operates, and then on to a more effective means of controlling the spread and/or treating the flu.

When you are missing major pieces of the puzzle - and the Spanish flu was one such piece - it is hard to be confident that your work is headed in the right direction. Unless you advocate research that is less about following reasonable lines of investigation, and more like taking shots in the dark?

[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
It should probably also be pointed out that several medium sized universities have nuclear reactors.
[/QUOTE]

Indeed, one of those reactors is on the campus of a university inside the boundaries of New York City, even. Fancy that!

It’s frustrating to find that some people persist in equating scientists as a group with the fictional Victor Frankenstein, in terms of ethics and tendency toward nutty and dangerous research habits. It’s a position taken up out of ignorance or paranoia. One of those conditions can be corrected… and one just can’t.