Scientists Create Deadlier TB Strain By Accident 46
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."
Hmm.. (Score:1, Redundant)
Get 'em, boys!
-Ashcroft
Things that make you go (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Things that make you go (Score:1)
Re:Things that make you go (Score:1)
100% Guaranteed Effective!
Instructions:
1 Open Mouth.
2 Open Vial.
3 Pour Contents of Vial into Mouth.
4 Swallow.
5 Go to 4.
6 Close Mouth.
One of very few hyper-virulent organisms ever crea (Score:5, Funny)
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]
Re:One of very few hyper-virulent organisms ever c (Score:2)
Re:One of very few hyper-virulent organisms ever c (Score:1)
don't they know (Score:1)
Hmmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Underlines the problems with genetic manipulation. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Underlines the problems with genetic manipulati (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Underlines the problems with genetic manipulati (Score:2)
Why were they trying in the first place? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why were they trying in the first place? (Score:2)
That's possibly it. The other alternative is to let everyone catch it.
The biggest (IMO overblown) worry about GMO in
Kinda frightening (Score:1)
Re:Kinda frightening (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:Kinda frightening (Score:1)
Anyhow, if I continue right now, I will go in circles and confuse myself.
somewhere far beneath the surface ... (Score:1)
The question is: will they publish it or just pile it up their large collection of other deadly virii?
The question is: misspelt (Score:5, Funny)
. humanii
. sheepii
. cowii
. catii
. pigii
. giraffii
. dogii
Re:The question is: misspelt (Score:1)
I believe you mispelled that, you should leave out the last 'e'. Though I'm not native English speaker, so I could be wrong...
Re:The question is: misspelt (Score:2)
It seems to me... (Score:1)
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.
Obviously... (Score:2)
Doesn't anybody read Stephen King? (Score:1)
Risk Assessment (Score:3, Insightful)
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....
Re:Risk Assessment (Score:1)
Re:Risk Assessment (Score:2)
Re:Risk Assessment (Score:2)
Top ten list (abbreviated) (Score:5, Funny)
.
.
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".
-
Re: Top ten list (abbreviated) (Score:1)
> Top 10 people you don't want to hear say "Oops".
You left out the one about circumcision.
HA! (Score:2)
common practise ... (Score:1)
And 28 Days Later ... (Score:1, Funny)
Tuber culosis? (Score:1)
Does this mean all our potatos are going to get culosis?
I just wanted to say.. (Score:1, Funny)
smart descision ? (Score:1)
Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
One Step Closer (Score:2)
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