Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science

Scientists Create Deadlier TB Strain By Accident 46

Posted by timothy from the oops-did-it-again dept.
Makarand writes "BBC News is reporting that Scientists at the University of California (Berkeley, U.S.) accidentally created a hyper-virulent form of the Tuberculosis bacterium while trying to alter its genetic structure to make it less deadly. The mutant form of the super-bug could multiply more quickly and also had the unexpected effect of undermining the body's own immune response against Tuberculosis."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Create Deadlier TB Strain By Accident More

Scientists Create Deadlier TB Strain By Accident

Comments Filter:

  • Hmm.. (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Bombcar ( 16057 )
    Now we know where the scab-pickin' smallpox terrorists are!

    Get 'em, boys!

    -Ashcroft
  • Hmmmm. Now why would we need an ultra-virulent Tuberculosis?

  • A virulent form of tuberculosis was created in the laboratory by experts trying to alter its genetic structure. The mutant form of the bug multiplied more quickly, and was more lethal than its natural counterpart. "This is one of the very few hyper-virulent organisms ever created," said scientist Dr Lisa Morici.

    I could just picture the glee with which Dr. Lisa Morici must have said that. It reminds me of the smile on the son's face when his dad came to visit him in his lab.

    From [peteranthonyholder.com]

    The father was very proud when his son went off to college. He came to tour the school on Parents' Day and observed his son hard at work in the chemistry lab.

    "What are you working on?" he asked.

    "A universal solvent," explained the son, " a solvent that'll dissolve anything."

    The father whistled, clearly impressed, then wondered aloud, "What'll you keep it in?"

  • This is how we get really bad sci fi movies. Shit like this.

  • Hmmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hanji ( 626246 ) on Saturday December 27, 2003 @04:15PM (#7818589)
    I'm reading Stephen King's The Stand [amazon.com] at the moment. 'nuff said.

  • Underlines the problems with genetic manipulation. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pwagland ( 472537 ) on Saturday December 27, 2003 @04:27PM (#7818646) Journal
    First up, don't get me wrong. Genetic research is incredibly useful, and as a tool in the modern medical warchest has paid great dividends. However, from the article "The emergence of these strains should pose no risk to humans, [Dr Morici] said." He goes on to say that these strains probably already exist, or have existed in the wild, but, for whatever reason, they are not viable.

    Now imagine, for sake of argument, that we create a similar problem with wheat or rice, common non-human subjects of genetic manipulation. Further, assume that we don't catch it in the lab. It might not kill us directly, but by wiping out our "natural"* crops it may well starve us to death... * "natural" since farmers have been selectively breeding grains and livestock for many centuries, it is just that recently we have improved on the technique.

  • What is the point of trying to make less deadly versions of TB? Are they trying to make a version that will stimulate the production of the same antibodies, but not harm someone, so they can make a live vacine? The article doesn't seem to worry about details like that, i guess the interesting bit is them making a harmless mistake, rather than the useful work they are trying to do...
    • > What is the point of trying to make less deadly versions of TB? Are they trying to make a version that will stimulate the production of the same antibodies, but not harm someone, so they can make a live vacine? The article doesn't seem to worry about details like that, i guess the interesting bit is them making a harmless mistake, rather than the useful work they are trying to do...

      That's possibly it. The other alternative is to let everyone catch it.

      The biggest (IMO overblown) worry about GMO in

  • That is a pretty frightening bit 'o news there, given the government's track record for 'misplacing' things.
    • That is a pretty frightening bit 'o news there

      Yes, it is frightening. And, I'm not just agreeing with you because of what could occur in the future if a variant strain of TB was accidentally (or even purposely) released into the general population, but because I've already personally experienced the suffering that it can cause. TB has hit my family particularly hard -- three of my aunts succumbed to it during internment in World War II.

      So, when I hear about researchers fooling about with virulent d
      • I agree (though this post is very late and will probably be unnoticed) that it is quite dangerous to fool with viruses. However, I can also see how it can be very helpful. If the scientests were much more careful than in the past, viral research could prevent deaths and such. Of course, that is not considering the fact that viruses mutate seemingly without rhyme or reason, so our friend today would be our enemy tomorrow.

        Anyhow, if I continue right now, I will go in circles and confuse myself.

  • well, maybe some sicko scientist somewhere down in a military basement accedently will create a non-virulent tuberculosis bacterium while trying to alter its genetic structure to make it hypervirulen.
    The question is: will they publish it or just pile it up their large collection of other deadly virii?
  • Like all those bioterrorists out there who work in hidden laborotories around the world, fiendishly trying to create super-deadly diseases to wipe out us decadent western scum...

    Should instead just try to create a harmless bug, for laboratory purposes. Every time someone tries that, they end up with something which kills every mouse in the area.

  • ...it must be a government funded project to screw up that badly.
  • Sounds like The Stand starting to unfold.

  • Risk Assessment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wardish ( 699865 ) on Saturday December 27, 2003 @09:20PM (#7819796) Journal
    Actually I'm surprised that there was any report in the news at all. Some enterprising reporter must have been keeping a close eye on minor publications or some such.

    In the scheme of things and to put it into perspective.

    People are going to be doing this sort of work either out in the open or as underground projects. The fact is that we've the best chance to have the skills and technology to deal with the possible accidental and/or bioterror release if we encourage as much work in this area as we can.

    If we clamped down on it then only a small elite group will have access to the knowledge and tools and they will be of lower quality than in a more open scenario.

    Yes I have considered that the "bad" guys will also have the advantage of better tools. Additionally there will be an increased risk of accidental release due to much more research being done. But I think the advantages of having many more people available and speeding up our advances far outweigh the added risk.

    Mmmmm thorazine....
    • I agree. I remember seeing on the cover of some pop science magazine... something about decoding SARS in five days. I don't remember the specifics, but what if everyone ran some distributed computing to help out? People could use their dsl connections for more besides routing pr0n! Seriously though, it's cat and mouse. Harness the resources.
    • As technology gets more and more powerful, the killing power of one man increases more and more (as well as the healing power). The problem comes when one man has the ability to, by himself, decide to wipe out all humans and then carry through with it. However, one could view a species that ends up killing itself as an undesireable one. So really it comes down to, will we kill ourselves or not?
    • The work was published in PNAS [nih.gov] - not exactly a minor publication.

  • Top ten list (abbreviated) (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Saturday December 27, 2003 @10:27PM (#7820009) Homepage
    .
    .
    .
    5) NASA telemetry station, tracking YetAnotherMarsProbe.
    4) Your barber, giving you a hair cut.
    3) Your daughter, checking a pregnancy test.
    2) A munitions expert, loading nuclear weapons for transport.
    1) A genetic engineer, experimenting on human pathogens.

    Top 10 people you don't want to hear say "Oops".

    -
  • They had that gene sequencer in reverse. How silly.
  • Acctually, i don't think this ultra-virulent form was created that 'accidentally'. It's a common practice in dna-modification research to simple fuck up a part of the dna of the bacterium and then look which one has the most peculiar change in its behaviour. Maybe the chance of creating a less virulent bacterium is even smaller than an ultra-virulent one. Nevertheless, in my opinion scientist will stumble on a lot more (and worse) of those freaking creatures of mankind.
  • The entire world's population will be reduced to deranged psychos looking for fresh blood.


  • Does this mean all our potatos are going to get culosis?

  • hey, thanks a lot guys.
  • would be to put a warning out on gene modification recipe and make this new variation extinct . The lab would have the only culture in existance , right . u.n.l.e.s.s.o.f.a.m.i.s.s.i.n.g.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.w. t.h.p.l.a.t.e

  • Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by metamatic ( 202216 ) on Sunday December 28, 2003 @11:10AM (#7821854) Homepage Journal
    Someone call Rumsfeld, I know his friend Saddam is in jail but he might know another murderous dictator we can sell the stuff to.
  • Thank God scientists have moved us one step closer to Captain Trips [amazon.com]. Oh wait - that marks the END OF THE WORLD.

    Why the hell don't scientists who do something like this write a report for the National Security Council, and then destroy their research and all documentation about how they did it?

    You can yell about "security through obscurity" applying to germ warfare, but until we get better at actually preventing supergerms from killing us all, I'd just as soon not make any new ones. Let's figure out how

Slashdot Top Deals

The goal of Computer Science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.

Close