Controversial
research into making bird flu easier to spread in people is to
resume after a year-long pause.
Some argue the research is essential for understanding how
viruses spread and could be used to prevent deadly pandemics killing
millions of people.
Research was stopped amid fierce debate including concerns about
modified viruses escaping the laboratory or being used for
terrorism.
The moratorium gave authorities time to fully assess the safety
of the studies.
A type of bird flu known as H5N1 is deadly and has killed about
half the people who have been infected.
It has not caused millions of deaths around the world because it
lacks the ability to spread from one person to another. Cases tend
to come from close contact with infected birds.
Scientists at the Erasmus University in the Netherlands and the
University of Wisconsin-Madison in the US discovered it would take
between five and nine mutations in the virus' genetic code to allow
it to start a deadly pandemic.
Dangerous science?
Their research was the beginning of a long-running furore
involving scientists, governments and publishers of scientific
research.
Continue reading the main story
Balancing risk
It is easy to see why designing a more dangerous version of
H5N1 would raise concerns. A virus which can kill half of the
people it infects and could spread rapidly from person to person
is the stuff of Hollywood disaster movies.
However, the research could reveal important insights that
could prevent such an infection arising in the wild and help
build defences just in case.
The studies in ferrets showed that five to nine mutations
were needed to get H5N1 spreading through the air from animal to
animal.
This helps health officials tracking the virus as they can
keep an eye out for danger signs in the virus' genetic code. Two
of the mutations have been seen in the wild - but alone are not
enough to set alarm bells ringing.
Getting an idea of what a highly infectious H5N1 virus would
look like can also be used to help design effective vaccines and
anti-viral medications.
This controversy is about balancing risks - do you study the
virus with a remote chance of it getting out of the laboratory
or do you avoid such research and miss out on discoveries which
could save lives in the next pandemic?
The US National Science Advisory Board for
Biosecurity asked academic journals not to publish key parts of the
findings. It was concerned terrorists would use the details to
develop a biological weapon.
It provoked outcry among some scientists who said their academic
freedom was being restricted. Other scientists said the risk of the
virus spreading was too great for such research to take place and
described it as a folly.
The details were eventually published in the journals
Nature and
Science.
However, the academics involved agreed to a voluntary 60-day
moratorium on research - which was later extended to more than a
year.
It was to give governments time to review safety standards needed
in laboratories to conduct research with enhanced viruses and
whether they wanted to fund such research.
Back on
A letter signed by 40 virus researchers around the world,
published in the journals Science and Nature, said the moratorium
was being lifted.
It said appropriate conditions had been set in most of the world
and their studies were "essential for pandemic preparedness".
One of the leading proponents of the research Prof Ron Fouchier,
from the Erasmus Medical Centre, told the BBC it had been
"frustrating" to shut down research for the year.
"This research is urgent, while we are having this pause bird flu
virus continues to evolve in nature and we need to continue this
research.
"We cannot wait for another year or two years."
He expects to restart his laboratory's work within the next
couple of weeks.
However, it is a different case for many of the other research
groups involved. The US has not decided on the conditions under
which it will allow the experiments to take place and the same
applies to US-funded research taking place in other countries.
The decision has continued debate on whether the research should
take place at all.
Prof Robert May, from the University of Oxford and a former
president of The Royal Society, said: "These are not bad people,
they are good people with good intentions, but they look through
rose-coloured glasses at the security of the laboratories."
He said past history suggests "it will get out" as there had been
more than a thousand cases of people being infected in labs with the
highest standards and the 1977 outbreak of flu may have been
connected to a Russian facility.
"That's why I feel the world is a safer place if we maintain this
moratorium."
BBC © 2013
The BBC is not
responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21165288