Recipe for Destruction

After a decade of painstaking research, federal and university scientists have reconstructed the 1918 influenza virus that killed 50 million people worldwide. Like the flu viruses now raising alarm bells in Asia, the 1918 virus was a bird flu that jumped directly to humans, the scientists reported. To shed light on how the virus evolved, the United States Department of Health and Human Services published the full genome of the 1918 influenza virus on the Internet in the GenBank database.

This is extremely foolish. The genome is essentially the design of a weapon of mass destruction. No responsible scientist would advocate publishing precise designs for an atomic bomb, and in two ways revealing the sequence for the flu virus is even more dangerous.

First, it would be easier to create and release this highly destructive virus from the genetic data than it would be to build and detonate an atomic bomb given only its design, as you don't need rare raw materials like plutonium or enriched uranium. Synthesizing the virus from scratch would be difficult, but far from impossible. An easier approach would be to modify a conventional flu virus with the eight unique and now published genes of the 1918 killer virus.

Second, release of the virus would be far worse than an atomic bomb. Analyses have shown that the detonation of an atomic bomb in an American city could kill as many as one million people. Release of a highly communicable and deadly biological virus could kill tens of millions, with some estimates in the hundreds of millions.

A Science staff writer, Jocelyn Kaiser, said, "Both the authors and Science's editors acknowledge concerns that terrorists could, in theory, use the information to reconstruct the 1918 flu virus." And yet the journal required that the full genome sequence be made available on the GenBank database as a condition for publishing the paper.

Proponents of publishing this data point out that valuable insights have been gained from the virus's recreation. These insights could help scientists across the world detect and defend against future pandemics, including avian flu.

There are other approaches, however, to sharing the scientifically useful information. Specific insights - for example, that a key mutation noted in one gene may in part explain the virus's unusual virulence - could be published without disclosing the complete genetic recipe. The precise genome could potentially be shared with scientists with suitable security assurances.

We urgently need international agreements by scientific organizations to limit such publications and an international dialogue on the best approach to preventing recipes for weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands. Part of that discussion should concern the appropriate role of governments, scientists and their scientific societies, and industry.

We also need a new Manhattan Project to develop specific defenses against new biological viral threats, natural or human made. There are promising new technologies, like RNA interference, that could be harnessed. We need to put more stones on the defensive side of the scale.

We realize that calling for this genome to be "un-published" is a bit like trying to gather the horses back into the barn. Perhaps we will be lucky this time, and we will indeed succeed in developing defenses for these killer flu viruses before they are needed. We should, however, treat the genetic sequences of pathological biological viruses with no less care than designs for nuclear weapons.

By RAY KURZWEIL and BILL JOY

Ray Kurzweil, an inventor, is the author of "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology." Bill Joy, founder and former chief scientist of Sun Microsystems, is a partner at a venture-capital firm.

Source: NY Times

Ethics and Morality | Bad science | Bill Joy | Biotechnology | Biotechnology risk | Bioweapons | Disease | Enlightened self-interest | Epidemic risk | Health | Openness | Ray Kurzweil | Science | Science and ethics | Sociology | Superrationality | Technology | Technology and Society | Terrorism | Tragedy of the Commons | Efficiency

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Security though obscurity?

Come on, the authors of this article must be kidding! They are proposing the least successful approach of computer security to be brought into real life - security through obscurity? Just censor the publication of potentially lethal gene sequences and have peace of mind?

This is completely absurd. First, the overall public availability of this information is just what some bright individual, foundation, agency or business will need to devise a cure or antidote. So, it's a necessary step for safety. Second, when the data is widely open, if it is somehow spread into real danger (like, the 1918 virus coming back to life), it will be recognized as such much faster and that's what you need to properly restrain its effects. Public discussion of the sequence also helps a lot in the progress of defenses.

You cannot expect to go along treating people as children. They don't need self-proclaimed protectors of their future. Knowledge is a valuable asset - that's one more reason why it should be made public.

The "other approaches" to share the information are plainly ineffective and ridiculous. It is difficult to me to accept they really think that making the information only partially available will be of much use.

I myself think the authors have some kind of hidden agenda. Let's not make them censor our data. First will be the avian virus, then what next? Some potentially harming locus of the human genome, too dangerous to be known so that someone could easily devise a substance to exploit the physiology of its proteins?