tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post2041223669649676297..comments2023-07-15T04:39:59.759-07:00Comments on Genomics, Medicine, and Pseudoscience: It's time to destroy our smallpoxSteven Salzberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16549957293973146438noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-46803331896672576822011-03-15T07:52:04.669-07:002011-03-15T07:52:04.669-07:00Steven, I agree that it is very difficult but I gu...Steven, I agree that it is very difficult but I guess that in some 'bioterror circles' recreating this virus might seem like a very good idea. Also, you're right with the amount of money being spent on this. I hadn't really considered this. There are a lot more pressing viruses - poxviruses even (monkeypox primarily)- that should achieve more recognition and research.Connor Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08132413724023944783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-18057532722905766462011-03-15T07:36:24.047-07:002011-03-15T07:36:24.047-07:00Connor: recreating the virus is very difficult, an...Connor: recreating the virus is very difficult, and there's no reason to do it. Destroying the virus makes it far, far less likely that an accidental (or nefarious, intentional) release will occur. Keeping it around also costs lots of money - the CDC is employing significant numbers of researchers for this. They should be put to work on other infectious diseases instead - there are plenty of other things we should be spending on money on.Steven Salzberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16549957293973146438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-8617454098975123402011-03-15T07:04:38.168-07:002011-03-15T07:04:38.168-07:00"The genome has been sequenced several times ..."The genome has been sequenced several times over, and we have the technology to synthesize parts of the virus if we really need it for vaccine design"<br /><br />If we have the technology and capability to recreate the whole virus (look at what Craig Venter et al did with Mycoplasma), then what is the point in destroying stocks of a virus which could be remade at any number of institutes worldwide?<br /><br />Recent - and perhaps future - advancements have made this debate (for and against destrcution of virus) generally obsolete and I would therefore be on the side of caution and at least have something here to work from.<br /><br />There is also a lot which we currently do not fully understand about smallpox and variola, for example why upon recovery we appear completely immune to future infections. Variola is an extremely good - but technically difficult - model system for this type of work.Connor Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08132413724023944783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-68276456915138050232011-03-14T13:29:35.446-07:002011-03-14T13:29:35.446-07:00If smallpox is dangerous to have around, why was t...If smallpox is dangerous to have around, why was the 1918 influenza recreated?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-37810341246560487492011-03-14T04:27:38.300-07:002011-03-14T04:27:38.300-07:00Jeff: we can indeed make a vaccine from knowledge ...Jeff: we can indeed make a vaccine from knowledge of the DNA. In fact, we can probably reconstruct the entire virus. In 2002, scientists from SUNY Stony Brook (Wimmer and colleagues) reconstructed the polio virus from scratch, using knowledge of the sequence, and created infectious viruses. They published their results in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/297/5583/1016.abstract<br /><br />This was highly controversial at the time, and it hasn't been done again since, but it demonstrated that we could reconstruct a virus from its sequence.<br /><br />In addition, we can create viral proteins much more easily, using the sequence as a template. That's the main thing we need for new vaccine development. And as I wrote above, we already have a vaccine.Steven Salzberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16549957293973146438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-30815260063075372102011-03-14T01:58:42.267-07:002011-03-14T01:58:42.267-07:00Tigers are dangerous. Only powerful organizations ...Tigers are dangerous. Only powerful organizations have tigers. I know we've managed to remove tigers from populated areas, but the ones in zoos could still escape. We should stop tiger breeding efforts and kill the remaining tigers.<br /><br />Tomorrow we might discover that it is actually the epigenetic variation of it's the smallpox genome which triggers lethality. We might discover ... many things. Unlikely I admit.<br /><br />Keep smallpox in genetic zoos. Do not eradicate species.cariasohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896615627788687683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-13222815728945789012011-03-14T01:56:24.654-07:002011-03-14T01:56:24.654-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.cariasohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00896615627788687683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-26678290327215613292011-03-14T01:52:52.261-07:002011-03-14T01:52:52.261-07:00Sequencing the DNA does not mean we can make a vac...Sequencing the DNA does not mean we can make a vaccine from it. First of all, smallpox is a virus. And DNA does not serve as a "blueprint" for a cell as your 5th grade biology textbook told you. It's much more complicated than that. The same sequence of DNA can encode (and usually does) many different proteins. We need the actual virus to do actual research on it.Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-75289335012896387722011-03-13T19:13:27.578-07:002011-03-13T19:13:27.578-07:00I don't know why but although your arguments a...I don't know why but although your arguments are convincing and pretty obvious and I have no counter argument I still feel that we should keep them around, as long as there is laws about war and the ethics of it are opposed to biowarfare I think we should keep it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-4114803730250761132011-03-13T18:12:53.634-07:002011-03-13T18:12:53.634-07:00Smoke Sign: your argument (or question) doesn'...Smoke Sign: your argument (or question) doesn't imply that we would benefit in any way from keeping our smallpox. We already have lots of vaccine stockpiled. Keeping live smallpox only increases the opportunities for it to get into others' hands. And if others have it already, it won't deter them to know that we still have it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8211371452778645597.post-27880299181319109242011-03-13T14:05:50.992-07:002011-03-13T14:05:50.992-07:00I wonder if the US and Russia ARE the only ones th...I wonder if the US and Russia ARE the only ones that have it. While I agree that destroying the virus if they indeed ARE the only ones in possession is a good thing, but what if they are not....Smoke Signhttp://www.facebook.com/#!/smoke.signnoreply@blogger.com