BIOTERRORISM: Mutant Flu Virus

The H5N1 avian influenza causes an infectious disease in birds that can be spread to people. Almost all people that have encountered the disease have been in close contact with infected birds. The disease is serious and has a high mortality. About 60% of infected people that catch the disease do not survive. (http://www.who.int/influenza/human_animal_interface/avian_influenza/h5n1_research/en/) Naturally, the disease was not transmitted from person to person.

Recently scientists have been able to create in the laboratory a form of the avian influenza virus H5N1 that can be transmitted among mammals or between people. The argument used to justify such efforts is that scientist wanted to see how transmission of the disease is influenced by genetic manipulation in order to make possible the early detection of potential strains that can cause pandemics. The creation of the H5N1 form that is transmissible between people has raised concerns about the risks and safety of such research. If such strains of virus were accidentally released from the labs they could easily spread to unprotected population across countries and continents causing a pandemic. Such research has also raised the concerns related to the possible use of the virus as a biological agent in a bioterrorist attack.

Bioterrorism is the release of biological agents that includes viruses, bacteria, or toxins that could be transmitted through air, food, or water. The original avian influenza virus could spread only from sick birds to the humans in close contact with them and not from the sick person to a healthy one.

The simple fact that the new genetically changed H5N1 virus can easily pass between humans creates the basic premise for a weapon for bioterrorism. Biological agents are easy and inexpensive to obtain, easily spread, and can spread fear and panic beyond any actual physical damage they can cause.

Accidental release of the virus is also possible regardless the safety measures that are in place in labs. This makes the accidental spread of the disease and eventual quick spread among the population a reality.
It is possible that with the technological means available today and amassed knowledge in genetic, microbiology, virology, biology or other related disciplines scientist can achieve similar results with other types of viruses or microbes that can be a threat to public health and safety.  Such results are predictable. In the actual case, I believe, the findings and results were not incidental. Instead they were the result of a well studied methodology and work that may have lasted for years. Conducting such work requires also funding and therefore such work controllable. The ethics committees, public safety entities, IRB and other entities that make possible similar research activities should have been dealing with the question whether such research should have been allowed or not. I assume that their decision has been to allow it.

The other question raised by such events is that related to the publication of similar results. If such results became public knowledge how easily similar effects can be reproduced by those who may plan to use them for terrorism.

Mutant flu virus or in this case the H5N1 avian flu virus that is transmissible between mammals intrigued me immensely. The looming fear of accidental release of such a virus or even worse, a bioterrorist attack with a virus studied and understood by the researchers conducting it without the public’s knowledge would create uproar. This scenario could lead to greater skepticism of the general public towards research and science in general. The trust that people put on scientists to be innovative and find cures through research could forever be tarnished.

This study is very important because it gives us the ability to look for certain clues in animals not just ferrets that are likely to become infected with this virus and how we can anticipate when the next flu virus can occur. There was a lot of doubt about the ability of this virus circulating around the world, reaching unprotected populations that can have a severe threat but now there is no doubt that this could become a new pandemic.
In my opinion the results of similar studies should be published. Publishing the results of the study would give insight and the needed knowledge to monitoring the incidence and spread of the avian influenza, create more awareness of the virus, greater information for vaccine development, and possibly more funding by the people for future research for cures and treatments of the H5N1 virus.

 

The methodology used to create the new virus strains should not be published. In fact the governments should put very strong safety measures to prevent that the technology and method remain intellectual property of the scientific institution that has developed them. In addition, the government should take the proper measures that would prevent the divulging of such knowledge to public because of the danger of being used to create biological agent that can be used in bioterrorist attacks.

However the concerns about publishing such results could be sheer public panic, biosecurity or bioterror acts, accidental release, and broad proliferation.

Video on the debate of H5N1 avian flu virus:
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/02/video-debating-h5n1-and-dual-use-research.html
Advances in science occur only when information is shared so that others can duplicate a study and make new discoveries.
 *I do not own these images, they were found on various tumblr sites. Please let me know if any are yours and I will give you credit for them. Thanks so much!

GMOs

 In a democratic society the role of the government is to create the right environment for the economic growth and improvement of general welfare. Private enterprises play a fundamental role in the economic development. Most of innovations and investments are made in the private sector. Among the main drives for people working in the private sector is the profit that they make for their shareholders. Shareholders who are owners of such companies and other people connected to them have the same interests in growing and profits and this is how interest groups are created.

Most of the time narrow interests of these groups are put above the general wellbeing. For example, to increase the profits private companies strive to maintain monopolistic status by using all means possible. This allows them to maintain prices high that the people will pay for their products. These interest groups can include insurance companies that insure people, software companies like Apple and Microsoft or other. In other cases, private companies try to hide the negative effects that their productive processes have on the environment. BP, for example, took short cuts in the process of drilling underwater and avoided the required work to take safety measures and protect the environment. As a result it was the society that had to absorb all the costs of oil spill that happened few years ago.

The same situation is with the companies that burn coal or other fuel contributing to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. In other more extreme cases their products may cause direct harm to animals or even humans. Because disclosing such things and spending money to curb such effects they try to manipulate the elected officials using the lobbyist companies and making laws that allow their activities even though population may be hurt.

The role of the government is to regulate all the private companies’ activities in order people’s safety and wellbeing is guaranteed. It is always the public and its wellbeing that the government should take care off first and then the interest groups. Many times this requires fighting against the interest groups and their representatives, the lobbyist. The government is always under the effect of lobbyist and the population may not have its representatives to fight for them. Monsanto is one of the companies that has the same characteristics and attributes of the big companies that are driven toward profits.

Major food manufactures should strive to educate the public by allowing them to become part of the process of making new products or in this case, GMO foods. Farmers have manipulated their crops with genetic modifications such as fermentation, as well as, the selection of desired traits. Genetic engineering is simply a new form of genetic modification that transfers genes from one plant species to another. The transfer of DNA, a non foreign substance, from one species to another, is simply a modified way to attain an organism with preferred traits.

Genetically modified organism or GMO is by definition, ‘an organism, with the exception of human beings, in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.’ (1)

Instead of mating two plants to get an offspring, plants are now being bred in a laboratory by having DNA from another organism inserted to get the desired traits. This is a type of genetic engineering that involves plants and the foods we consume.  The usage of GMO technology allows for farmers to attain a desired genotype in the next offspring, as opposed to traditional breeding that takes up to several generations to get an offspring with a desired trait. Not only would farmers have to wait several generations for such an offspring, they would also have to wait for the plant to sexually mature before they too can be bred. GMO technology is more predictable and time efficient. (4)

The question is how healthy is genetically engineered food for us?

Anti-GMO organizations argue that the genotypes that transgenic technology produces could never exist in nature as scientists are transferring genes from animals to microbes or plants, making this method of larger food production more unpredictable.

There have not been enough studies on GM foods to be considered safe or unhealthy for people to eat. However, this could be due to the fact that the company Monsanto has restricted independent research on their genetically engineered crops by patenting their crops. (5)

These genetically engineered foods could pose unknown health threats such as proteins within GM foods that could trigger an allergic reaction. The closest side effects to any recorded death or illness due to the consumption of genetically engineered foods was in 1996 when an increase of low birth weight babies, infertility, and an increase in cancer was noted in the United States (5).

The latest anti-GMO campaign is blaming an increase in childhood cancers on GMOs. The National Cancer Institute tracking childhood cancer rates indicates an increase in childhood cancers. Although the rates of cancer have increased it is hard to say whether it is due solely to GM foods. There are many factors that can contribute to the increased rates of cancer and these factors can be diet, pollution, genetic makeup of parents, medical history, medications, and tobacco.

There was an experiment conducted in Scotland on rats that were only fed GM potatoes that contained the gene lectin that suffered internal organ damage. (2) The study was conducted poorly with a species of rats that are known to develop cancer and lacks sufficient proof against GM foods. Therefore, there needs to be more research for the short term as well as the long term effects of these genetically engineered foods.

GM crops allow for farmers to benefit while pesticide resistance lowers the need for harsh and dangerous chemicals to be used. Consumers can benefit from these crops which can provide better taste, increased nutritional value, and can last a longer period of time. GM crops could be the answer to world hunger. These crops allow for farmers to produce larger crops that are profitable for farmers in the marketplace. These GM crops are nutrition enhanced which could help with malnutrition worldwide.

However, in developing countries much of their problems stem from corruption within the government itself where the defying problems are inequality, poverty, and the minimal amount of available land and food. The cost of GM seeds that these farmers would need to grow larger crops with a decreased amount of pesticides could backfire. Multinational corporations that control the market for the GM seeds could increase hunger rates forcing farmers to become reliant on these corporations.

The technology needed to provide GM foods to the people can make food accessible to almost all people including the poor. However, the companies that own GM technology also benefit from the production of GM foods. These biotech companies can easily become monopolies using their GMO technology to gain large profits from farmers that will inevitably have to pay for the purchase of GM seeds. (3)

There are benefits and risks to everything, but I believe that having genetically engineered foods could be the answer to the problems that occur world-wide and not in just America. Starvation and malnutrition could be a part of history instead of a leading cause of death in poverty stricken areas. It is true that companies like Monsanto could easily become monopolies expensively charging farmers for GM seeds in order to gross large profits and patent their crops so to prevent further research. But, with the governments job to protect human rights and the dignity of its people there should be laws restricting some of these companies’ powers so that the consumer as well as farmers can benefit not just these monopolies.

GMO products should be labeled under ingredients because people should have the right to know what they are consuming. Both Parties, pro-GMO and anti-GMO, try to manipulate the public’s opinion through the media.  Conquering ignorance will lead to direct benefits to the people. In order to accomplish this we need to educate people and make them involved in such decision processes.

It is important to educate people and public perception so that they can make their own choice in what is healthy. In the process of educating the public, it could ignite more research and more funding for studies on GMO products that could one day help starving people in America as well as developing countries around the world.

1. (http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalsusedforfood/a/Arguments-For-And-Against-Genetically-Modified-Organisms.htm )
2. (http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/gmos_india/pro_con2.html )
3. (http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalsusedforfood/a/Arguments-For-And-Against-Genetically-Modified-Organisms.htm )
4.  http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/07/15/5-genetically-modified-foods-you-should-never-eat-150434
5. (http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalsusedforfood/a/Arguments-For-And-Against-Genetically-Modified-Organisms_2.htm )
6.  *I do not own these images, they were found on various tumblr sites. Please let me know if any are yours and I will give you credit for them. Thanks so much!

Institutional Review Boards

The role of the governments is to represent and protect the people. This applies when scientific research is being conducted as well. In that regard the most important role of government is to make sure that people’s lives are safe and human dignity respected. To protect human life and dignity the government requires that purposefully created bodies called Institutional Review Boards (IRB) approve the scientific research and written informed consent is obtained from people that will be subject of the study.

Informed consent is required to make sure that those patients that will be subjects of the study know all the benefits and risks as well as the costs that they may incur when participating in the study. In the field of medicine this will allow patient to be aware of the nature of the treatments, available alternative treatments, and risks and benefits related to such treatments. The client or patient must fully understand the treatment before the informed consent to have validity. Within the topic of ethics privacy and conflicts of interest are the most debated area in medical research. (1)

Without such approvals the research using human subjects cannot be conducted even though expected results may constitute breakthroughs in medicine that can save many lives. This is the case in USA and other developed countries. In general people in other countries agree with, support and even demand that their governments carry out the majority of these roles. In other cases especially in developing world where people are not fully aware and knowledgeable about their rights or where there are no institutions to protect human rights, conflicts of interests may prevail leading to research projects without the informed consent and IRB approvals.

These concepts have evolved with time and IRB and informed consents have not been know or honored before even in USA. Henrietta Lacks (1920-1951) is a patient of John Hopkins hospital who lived at a time when informed consent was simply a concept in its path to development and a time where IRBs were not present in governing and approving research protocols. In absence of informed consent and IRBs, there was a breach of confidentiality when Dr. Gey gave samples of Henrietta Lacks’ cells to any doctor or researcher who asked for. When Dr. Gey, Mrs. Lacks’ doctor discovered that her cancer cells didn’t die, he knew that her cells, the HeLa cell line would be instrumental to scientific breakthroughs and discoveries. He was right because for 60 years her cells provided the opportunity for scientists and researchers to make these discoveries.

Mrs. Lacks, however, was never told that her cells were being researched on or why her cells were taken at all. It is clear that this was a different era in medicine where permission to take a patient’s tissue sample for biomedical research purposes, and an informed consent, were non-existent. Henrietta Lacks serves as an example of a time before the protection of human subjects within studies. During this time period, though, many other patients never knew that their tissues were being used after they were cared for by doctors. (2)
Things are different nowadays, as patients are asked to sign an informed consent agreeing that the hospital owns the samples. It is important to keep in mind that Informed consent and IRB communities along with their guidelines are still evolving and improving. (3) Institutional review board committees or IRBs must find a balance between the protection of human ethical rights and encouraging innovative research that will benefit people in the future. (4) Without institutions like IRB committees and informed consent people would become fearful that they too can be used as a mere tool in biomedical research along with other studies. Mrs. Lacks’ story shows how important informed consent and IRBs are.

Unfortunately, people are still becoming victims of similar ethical violations. These individuals consist of the underprivileged and the medically illiterate.  Poor communication between the patient and doctor as well as low confidence levels of medical establishments are two key elements that lead to deficiency of an informed consent. Many underprivileged are suspicious of traditional medicine.

There is much controversy over IRBs because some believe that it restricts research and slows down progress of new medical discoveries or other possible forms of advances. Others believe that IRBs are necessary in protecting individuals from different forms of harm from the services they provide in helping researchers. When having access to an original consent, researchers argue whether a second or third consent is needed. There are individuals who strongly believe that donors should give a valid informed consent while others do not think that it is necessary if the samples are kept anonymous.

However, it is extremely important that people realize that IRBs are beneficial to both researchers and the participants in studies.  If it wasn’t for the existence of IRBs, the majority of the research that needs to be conducted with human subjects for medical discoveries would not happen because the government would not jeopardize the lives of humans to conduct a research that might not have any beneficial medical discoveries or the ‘possibility of a cure’. If IRBs were not in existence there would be some other form of restriction among studies. There has always been and will always be some challenge that researchers will have to overcome in order to complete their research. The IRBs were created so that scientists could conduct studies in order to make new medical discoveries while keeping people’s mental and physical health a main priority.   If researchers make it possible for their human subjects in developing countries or in US, to understand the reason for the study with its details along with the benefits of conducting the study then the subjects might be more helpful and willing during the procedure of donating.

The complications of such research include the need for awareness of local risks in the area, the presence of locals who understand the ethics and protocols of the research being conducted, and above all having the support of official researchers who are willing to abide by IRBs decisions and guidelines.


Satisfying both IRB (which includes ethical guidelines on human research) and the local, cultural, and socioeconomic factors of the developing country is very important because it can not only lead to an easier time conducting the research and having more people become donors but it could also lead to future opportunities to work with that developing country. If the US IRB shows respect for the developing country’s culture and traditions, making the human subjects the number one priority, then the research can gain a larger number of subjects and greater access to the resources they might need during the treatment.

1. http://fyb.umd.edu/2011/informed.html
2. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/publications/hopkins_medicine_magazine/hopkins_medicine_magazine_spring_summer_2011/web_extra_honoring_the_henrietta_lacks_legacy_at_hopkins
3. http://blog.acpinternist.org/2011/05/hela-hipaa-and-ethics-of-informed.html

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/irb/
 *I do not own these images, they were found on various tumblr sites. Please let me know if any are yours and I will give you credit for them. Thanks so much!