Wednesday 29 May 2013

Smallpox destruction deadline

Smallpox-Destruction deadline gets delayed, McKay B, Wall Street Journal, May 2011.

This article in the Wall Street Journal talks about the deadline for the destruction of the smallpox virus being delayed. I feel that this article is leaning more towards the side for destroying the samples as every time they mention an argument against they try to counter with an argument for. An example here is when they say "A scientific review completed late last year by a WHO advisory committee concluded the stocks were still needed. But a separate review by independent experts argued that the only "compelling" reason to keep the live virus is to meet regulatory standards for testing vaccines and drugs, and new methods should be developed that don't require the live virus." 

I disagree with the point that this article is making as I feel that we should not destroy the smallpox samples. In the article Nils Daulaire states that the decision makes them "three years closer to having the countermeasures we're aiming for". He is telling us that if the samples were destroyed this would mean it would take much longer to be able to protect against bioterror attacks leaving us more vulnerable. It is also mentioned that a "WHO advisory committee concluded the stocks were still needed" with their counter argument being "a separate review by independent experts argued that the only "compelling" reason to keep the live virus is to meet regulatory standards". On this point they have a well-respected and known committee on one side and some unknown experts on the other. This makes their point less believable as we do not know whether to trust their source as they have not been willing to give their names.

Proposed destruction of smallpox virus creates controversy, Parry W, LiveScience, April 2011.

This article also discusses the possible destruction of smallpox. I feel this article is more towards the idea of saving the smallpox samples as they counter their arguments against destroying them by saying “Others, however, warn that labelling possession of the virus a crime against humanity will in no way deter terrorists, and that without the live smallpox virus, called variola, we won't be able to prepare for the worst”. They also mention that “Hruby is working on an antiviral treatment for those who have been infected too long for the vaccine to be effective” and let us know that the living virus samples are needed in order for this treatment to be made. Another point made shows us their opinion on the virus being used as a bioweapon telling us that “Terrorism would be an unlikely source of smallpox outbreak” if we kept the virus samples intact because “we would be so well-protected against it that it would be unlikely to be effective if used”. They do give the other side of the argument however this seems to be a very understated attempt as they just tell us that “Theoretically everybody still agrees this should be done” and “The United States fully agrees that these samples should eventually be destroyed” and the two points are quickly countered.

I feel the article gives some good points and am extremely inclined to agree with their side of the argument. I find that their arguments towards keeping the virus are strong and based on real facts with some good points to back these facts up.

In the whole debate on destroying the smallpox samples I find myself on the side for keeping them. There are many ways we can use the virus to create new anti-vaccines and to learn more about many other disease that are similar. I feel that in the long run we will benefit from the decision not to destroy. I also find that the arguments for destroying are much weaker points and that most of them are unlikely, such as the idea that keeping the virus will result in another outbreak or cause someone to begin making bioweapons. These points bring me to the conclusion that the virus samples should be kept and not destroyed.