Researchers recently made some worrisome discoveries about the future of bird flu, but a government bio-security panel doesn’t want details released to the public.
It’s no secret that the H5N1 Avian Flu virus can be deadly—of the 600 human cases of infection worldwide, 60 percent have been fatal. Luckily, bird flu rarely infects humans and does not spread easily among them.
But that could soon change. When the National Institutes of Health (NIH) commissioned virologists to research H5N1, scientists introduced a number of mutations to the virus. Researchers at the Erasmus Medical Center in Holland found that H5N1 could easily morph into a highly transmissible variant, and even witnessed how this takes place.
“We have discovered that this is indeed possible, and more easily than previously thought,” said Erasmus researcher Dr. Ron Fouchier in a statement last month. “In the laboratory, it was possible to change H5N1 into an aerosol transmissible virus that can easily be rapidly spread through the air. This process could also take place in a natural setting.”
According to Fouchier, the discovery is important because it could help prevent a severe pandemic. “We now know which mutations to watch for in the case of an outbreak and we can then stop the outbreak before it is too late,” he said. “Furthermore, the finding will help in the timely development of vaccinations and medication.”
Similar findings were reported from a University of Wisconsin study, and both research teams have submitted papers to journals for publication. But the U.S. National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB) wants authors and journal editors to reconsider how the information is presented.
“Due to the importance of the findings to the public health and research communities, the NSABB recommended that the general conclusions highlighting the novel outcome be published, but that the manuscripts not include the methodological and other details that could enable replication of the experiments by those who would seek to do harm,” stated an NIH press release on Dec. 20.
Scientists usually include specific methodology in a research report so that colleagues can replicate their findings. But according to the NSABB, the risks of publishing this information outweigh the benefits of public disclosure, and may inadvertently place deadly data in the hands of potential bioterrorists who could use it to cook up their own pandemic.
Although the advisory board says the bird flu studies may be shared with relevant members of the scientific community, they want the individuals who view it to keep the details among themselves.
Last month Erasmus said that the recommendation not only puts academic and press freedom at stake, but is also a confidentiality nearly impossible to keep, “given that the data has to be shared with hundreds of researchers and governments.”
The Erasmus report has been submitted to Science, and Bruce Alberts, editor-in-chief of the journal, says his publication is still trying to determine how best to proceed.
In a statement Alberts said that Science strongly supports the work of the NSABB, but added that “our response will be heavily dependent upon the further steps taken by the U.S. government to set forth a written, transparent plan to ensure that any information that is omitted from the publication will be provided to all those responsible scientists who request it, as part of their legitimate efforts to improve public health and safety.”
Alberts said that there are many scientists within the influenza community who have “a bona fide need to know the details of this research in order to protect the public, especially if they currently are working with related strains of the virus.”
Similarly at Nature—the journal expected to publish the University of Wisconsin study—editors recognize the motivations behind the unprecedented NSABB recommendations to restrict public access to data and methods, but aren’t yet sure how they will address it.
“It is essential for public health that the full details of any scientific analysis of flu viruses be available to researchers,” said Nature’s editor-in-chief Philip Campbell in a statement. “We are discussing with interested parties how, within the scenario recommended by NSABB, appropriate access to the scientific methods and data could be enabled.”
Although the NSABB recommendation is nonbinding, scientists are cooperating. Erasmus researchers say they are currently working on a new manuscript that complies with NSABB suggestions.
The NIH said they are working to develop an oversight policy to evaluate research that has the potential to be misused for harmful purposes.
Friends Read Free