IP: Potential of genetically Engineered Viruses and Bacteria

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 14:52:08 -0500
> From: ds2000 <ds2000 () mediaone net>
>
> >From ABC News,
> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/SecondOpinion/secondopinion011116.html
> -
> Future Fears
> The Potential of genetically Engineered Viruses and Bacteria
>
> Commentary
> By Nicholas Regush
>
> Nov. 16 — The potential for biological terrorism far exceeds the
> current bio-defense focus on anthrax and smallpox. Advances in genetic
> engineering have opened the door to limitless germ weaponry that could
> outfox vaccines and treatments.
>
> We must face it: The risk is there. Science, in its steady gains to
> manipulate genes primarily for the purpose of developing medical
> treatments, has made it possible for the design of lethal
> cut-and-paste versions of viruses and bacteria.
>
> All that's technically required to experiment and possibly develop a
> deadly variation of even a common germ is access to the standard gene
> manipulation technology now available in labs worldwide.
>
>
> Modified Viruses
>
> The big wake-up call came in February when Australian scientists at
> Canberra's Research Center for the Biological Control of Pest Animals,
> publishing in the Journal of Virology, showed how easy it was to
> modify mousepox, a fairly innocuous virus in mice, and turn it into a
> killer.
>
> Actually, the goal of the experiment headed by scientist Ronald
> Jackson was to develop a vaccine that would make mice infertile. The
> research was in response to an agricultural need to control mouse
> plagues in rural areas.
>
> Technically, the genetic engineering approach they used to accomplish
> the task is not such a big deal. The researchers first inserted a
> mouse egg protein into the mouse-pox. They were working with the
> assumption that the engineered virus would cause a mild infection in
> mice and trigger an immune response against the virus that would also
> produce antibodies against mouse egg protein, and, in turn, attack
> eggs, causing infertility.
>
> But the researchers wanted to be sure that there would be a strong
> enough immune response, and so they inserted another gene, one that
> produces interleukin-4 (IL-4), a naturally-occurring compound in the
> body that is involved in immune-system regulation.
>
> On the basis of previous studies, the researchers thought the IL-4,
> acting as part of a virus, would enhance the immune system response
> against the mouse egg protein. But they were wrong. The modified virus
> instead destroyed the livers and killed many of the experimental mice.
>
> Even about half of those mice in the experiment who were vaccinated
> against mousepox died.
>
> The mouse deaths reportedly caught the researchers off-guard, but it
> shouldn't have been a surprise. For one thing, there has been an
> over-reliance on sparse data suggesting that you can't take a common
> germ and upgrade it into a killer.
>
>
> Potential Dangers to Humans
>
> So, let's have a reality check here and consider more carefully what
> might be possible via genetic engineering.
>
> What about the implications of the mousepox research for humans? Would
> putting IL-4 into human smallpox, which is closely related to
> mousepox, increase its killing potential?
>
> The haunting answer, according to the same scientists, is that no one
> really knows.
>
> What about genetically manipulating other viruses or bacteria that
> affect humans? Even fiddling with common ones like chickenpox that
> could overwhelm known treatments and vaccines? Again, there is not
> enough scientific knowledge to say yes or no. The fact that it may be
> possible speaks for itself.
>
> Some scientists, including Ken Alibek, former Soviet germ warfare
> expert and author of Biohazard, have stated that a biodefense against
> germ warfare that focuses mostly on vaccines could be rendered
> ineffectual by the tools of genetic engineering. One view is that
> finding new treatments to fight infection might be more practical.
>
> But even treatments such as drugs could be outwitted by well-designed
> germs. The fact is, we may already have stepped into an open and
> uncharted territory where novel forms of bioterror become possible.
>
> Biodefense may now rest more on moral suasion and international
> cooperation, which is what germ expert and Nobel Laureate Joshua
> Lederberg suggested in a talk in 1998.
>
> Still, there is the specter of the lone wolf working in a tiny lab
> with modern scientific tools. How do we deal with that?
>
> Nicholas Regush produces medical features for ABCNEWS. In his
> regularly featured column, he investigates medical trouble spots,
> heralds innovative achievements and analyzes health trends. His own
> website is Nicholasregush.com.
>
> --
> Dan S


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/