Desktop Biodetectors 66
IvyMike writes: "EE Times has an interesting article on the development of desktop biodetectors that could quickly detect the presence of pathogens like anthrax and smallpox. It uses some pretty cool technology to identify the target pathogen's DNA. Too bad we don't have these things today."
BioMonitoring (Score:2, Insightful)
It would seem most logical that if these biodetectors have enormous costs then the real decision is not whether to use them but where to use them.
If we had controlled ports on entry, that would be one place but proabaly not very wise given how open the US really is.
The other idea is first install them in major hospitals or have a roving CDC action team that would have these biodetectors (which they probably all ready have).
From the article, there main concern seemed to be cost, but in the light of certain events I think big business may see the benefits do out wiegh the costs
Thanks for reading
Too bad we don't have these things today? (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, sure, they're cool gadgets, but saying that is like saying "Too bad we don't have gadgets on the desktop to detect incoming meteors."
What are there now, somthing like under 30 cases of Anthrax so far? Sent to a few high-profile companies? Sure, that's a MASSIVE INCREASE over previous levels, but statistically you're still in pretty good shape. Don't let the media hype get you worked up.
Too bad we don't have detectors on our faucets just in case the level of mercury rises rapidly...
Ridiculous... (Score:3, Insightful)
Employee Survelliance? (Score:3, Insightful)
EMPLOYEE: JONES, PAUL
Biohazards: Clean
Infectious Diseases: Clean
Genetic anomolies: Clean
Pharmacopia: Found -
** ASPIRIN - Trace Amounts
==================
Report submitted to Human Resources for individual factors improvements...
These reports, while "sold" as providing the ability to detect hazardous materials could in fact be used in a manner similar to the Gattica theory: testing for genetic predispositions or even medications (say, the AIDS cocktail) to determine whether you should get that promotion or not. Really, from the business end--you've got rounds of layoffs, shouldn't you have the best information when selecting who goes and who stays?
:|
Re:Too bad we don't have these things today? (Score:3, Insightful)
statistically you're still in pretty good shape
But potentially we're in very bad shape.
The day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, people on the mainland were as statistically safe as they were the day before. The difference was the country was at war and many more casualties were certain.
What the anthrax statistics mean is that people have biological agents and are willing to use them. There no reason to think they will stop with anthrax. The threat will continue for many years.
There's some hope that this attack will be limited because of the crudeness of the delivery mechanism and the fact that anthrax wasn't engineered to resist antibiotics. There even a faint hope that this attack isn't part of the events of 9/11.
However, no other terrorist organization has ever stopped with one attack. If bioterrorism is part of their arsenal, we can expect the terrorists to use it again the way the IRA continues to plant bombs.
It's reasonable to expect devices like the one in this article to become as common as smoke detectors.
Do you really want this? (Score:2, Insightful)
How long before the gene screener is applied to human DNA? After all, you'd want to detect all those threats from people with "criminal" genes too...
If something like this were to ever be deployed, how long before people start mailing polymorphic-self-mutatating-stealth-viruses, applying computer virus technology to bio weapons??
I think the idea that a desktop detector can stop this kinda of terror attack is naive. Why not just vaccinate everyone who could be in a position of risk?? Surely a lot cheaper....
I can see it now... Damn, I got infected with Anthrax 9b, duh, you forgot to apply those bio-security patches in time....