US develops lethal new viruses

New Scientist ^ | 19:00 29 October 03 | Staff

[biggerten]

Now, if they can invent mosquito-pox, I'll be happy.

[RussianConservative]

911 justify creation of biological agent? How this different then program of many other nation who constantly condemned for WMD work?

[tkathy]

Sooner or later some terrorist will get their hands on this and our govt will whine and carry on. Too stupid.

[Timesink]

911 justify creation of biological agent? How this different then program of many other nation who constantly condemned for WMD work?

The other nations are out to get US.

[spetznaz]

9-11 or not this is stupid. Unlike nuclear and chemical weapons, biological weapons can propagate themselves ....especially when you delve into the arena of viruses. Bacteriological weapons are easier to manage which is why they are preferred by those who would want a lethal attack that can be controlled. Viral bio-weapons are the domain of those who would opt for a super-virulent weapon that although harder to control than bacteriological agents is more potent.

And once you get into recombinant viral agents (such as what these guys are working on, or what the Soviets used to research in their lab-cities) you end up playing with what could easily be a global bane if the right (read wrong) set of circumstances came together.

I would not be concerned if they were playing with bacteria ....but genetically modified viruses worry me ....a lot. I have seen the effects of Marburg (a relative of the ebola virus that has similar effects on the human body ....read: bodily fluids oozing from every pore and black vomit ....black vomit is when a person sloughs off the internal lining of their stomach and gut and vomits it forth ......it is black hence the name).

The scientists should know that with the world's citeis being totally congested and transportation between continents a mere several hours that a viral plague would spread like wildfire. And chickens always go home to roost, meaning the US would face this woe as well.

[Centurion2000]

Ramshaw's team made its initial discovery while developing contraceptive vaccines for sterilising mice and rabbits without killing them. The researchers modified the mousepox virus by adding a gene for a natural immunosuppressant called IL-4, expecting this would boost antibody production.

This was detailed in Demon in the Freezer ..... it may come down to just making an islampox and going for it.

[Centurion2000]

911 justify creation of biological agent? How this different then program of many other nation who constantly condemned for WMD work?

America does not have an active bio-warfare program. Unlike Russia ... the name Ken Alibek ring any bells ?

This was something that was accidentally discovered and there is a book called Demon in the Freezer that goes into a lot more detail that this.

[RussianConservative]

This remind me of movie 12 Monkies...who need terrorists...if one scientist go wacky?

[RussianConservative]

First I not agree with any biowarfare program...it is all suicide. Second, I read article 3 years ago from US press that program restarted under Clinton and continued under Bush from mid 90s.

[Centurion2000]

First I not agree with any biowarfare program...it is all suicide. Second, I read article 3 years ago from US press that program restarted under Clinton and continued under Bush from mid 90s.

It was restarted yes .... I should correct myself. We do not have an offensive weapons biowarfare department. Just defense and vaccinations.

[aristeides]

Biowarfare ping.

[mugs99]

It's really kind of funny when you think about it.
Everyone is worried about global warming, tobacco, aids, drugs and nukes.
In reality, it will probably be genetically engineered viruses that extinct mankind.

[aristeides]

How does research for offense differ from research for defense?

[GluteusMax]

*Shaking head in disbelief*

Unless one's goal is to reduce world population to levels mandated by Kyoto protocols, I can't imagine any reason to genetically engineer virii that cannot be immunized against.

The sheer stupidity of this is absolutely staggering. Researchers have also recently exhumed corpses who died from the 1918 flu to weaponize, er, study it. The flimsy cover story is that these researchers are genuinely concerned that a bunch of third-world, towel-wearing terrorists will have the capacity to splice genes and create population slashing diseases, so they need to pre-emptively develop the same thing to guard agaist it...The likelihood of splicing a virus the same way someone else would to weaponize it seems ludicrously small.

Obviously the more likely scenario would be terrorists BUYING some of these things from a lab/researcher making the evil things in the first place.

[Scenic Sounds]

The adults are in charge of ours.

[Centurion2000]

How does research for offense differ from research for defense?

Offensive research determines levels agent diffusion (like cutting anthrax with silicate powders to make it hang in the air longer), developes new bio weapon systems (airborne ebola), modifies artillery, rocket and strategic missiles for agent delivery.

Defensive bio weapons programs cover detection, epidemiology from a military standpoint, possible treatements and vaccinations. Finally they will work to develop a Racal type isolation suit that can stand up to the rigors of a combat environment.

[mewzilla]

Anyone know anything about the reliability of this publication?

[Darnright]

>The adults are in charge of ours.

As of now. And what happens when we get some Bill Clinton type who shares this technology with other countries? Can't have only one superpower, ya know.

[Zeppo]

How does research for offense differ from research for defense?

Speculation only, because I do not work in the field and only know what I have read in the papers and on the Internet, but as an example, anthrax research for defense could include research on vaccines, detection, or other ways to neutralize an attack. Research for offense could include methods for creating very small particles that can carry and disperse anthrax spores without clumping together, or other delivery systems. So, it is possible to conceive of ways to differentiate between research for offensive purposes vs. research for defensive purposes.

The line between them may be blurred, however, if it is necessary to do research on weaponization techniques as a prelude to successfully researching, demonstrating, and testing defensive countermeasures.