That seems to be the logic behind the very regrettable and dangerous decision by two journals, Science and Nature, to publish research done in ferrets, that shows exactly what steps are needed for the H5N1 subtype of Influenza A to mutate into a virus that has the ability to cause a pandemic.
I do realize that there was much discussion about whether to publish or not, but I am somewhat astonished that it has actually been done.
Next up, some Nuclear Physics journal will publish a helpful tutorial on how to produce weapons-grade Plutonium. Because the mere fact of the publication will deter rogue states from reading through it, taking notes and going to work on using the information. The logic behind this argument entirely escapes me, I have to say.
If you want the data from this H5N1 research to do good, and if you want to work on preventing a pandemic or gain more knowledge about ways of transmission, why not phone or email the authors and ask for a copy ? I just can not for the life of me see why we have to publish a Howto on creating a killer virus in a public and widely-read journal (or two). Might as well put it on Wikipedia.
The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) in the USA discussed this matter and advised the government in the end that the research should be published. I am not aware that any other country’s biosecurity agencies were involved in the decision, but maybe I just don’t know about it. If they weren’t, and this was indeed a decision by US agencies alone, I think that in itself is another big problem.
One of the arguments in support of publishing seems to have been that the research was done in ferrets and not humans, and that it is not certain that the knowledge gained is 100% applicable to mechanisms of transmission in humans. Well, I have to tell you, then why didn’t we take the time to investigate that first, before potentially putting a recipe for how to create a doomsday virus out onto the Internet ?
I think this is madness.
No. This is Sparta!
(sorry, needed to be done)
All you need is a nuclear reactor. The technology was developed during WW2 and weapons grade plutonium (Pu-240) was produced at Oak Ridge, Tennessee in 1943. Each year about 20 tonnes of Pu-240 are still produced as a by-product of the nuclear power industry. I daresay pretty well every nuclear engineer knows how to produce Pu-240.
Bah. The most dangerous research is not medical but drone-related: if I were in law enforcement, I would actually be assuming, right now, that unmanned high-altitude drones were already being used to smuggle anything over national borders which can be broken down into small pieces and has a high value, including nuclear material. I doubt there’s anything that can be done to stop it, either. And I’m sure that sooner or later someone will have the obvious idea: have the tiny little bird- and bug-sized spy drones they’re currently developing carry little pebbles of material up to a ledge on a tall building away from all the windows and assemble a nuke in situ. (Remember: any chunk of highly fissile material which is larger than critical mass and has no control effectively is a nuclear bomb. The earliest ones just worked by smacking two subcritical pieces of Uranium together, and even the current ones have some variation on that idea as the payload, no matter how sophisticated or powerful the rocket underneath may be.) The drones can be sacrificed if necessary, and the individual pieces will be safe because they won’t have critical mass. It’s only a matter of time, really. The only question is: will it be the U.S. military doing this and claiming that all the people who die in the explosion are collateral damage (as we already do with the many, many other ways we kill innocent people), or will it be someone the U.S. military has turned into an enemy doing it to the U.S. because it’s the most effective method of revenge?
@ the vicar. I have done forty years of drone research and I can tell you I don’t worry about your scenario.