arrow2 Comments
  1. Robert H. Woodman
    Jan 07 - 7:16 pm

    I disagree that a naturally emerging air-transmissible A(H5N1) virus is more scary than a knowledgeable terrorist getting his or her hands on the virus. The terrorist is the larger concern, because once the terrorist obtains the virus, he (or she, but I’ll stick with the masculine for simplicity’s sake) can enhance the virus as a weapon, can inflict the virus in areas of the world that have maximum vulnerability to such attacks, can use the element of surprise more effectively than “nature” can (thereby enhancing the terror aspect of the virus), and can use the threat of future viral attacks as a means to extort changes in national policies.

    The data should be treated like “top secret” National Security information. That includes vetting the people to whom the data is released and attaching criminal penalties to those who release the data recklessly or deliberately to unauthorized persons. If the data is handled rigorously according to procedures for “top secret” national security information, your question “…if 100 or 1000 researchers are given access to the information, will it really be any more secure than if it were simply published?” becomes significantly less important, perhaps even moot.

    Rapid publication of the data is NOT warranted. Careful handling and very limited dissemination of the critical parts (i.e., those with national security implications) of the data ARE warranted.

  2. double glazing manchester
    Jan 15 - 8:08 pm

    I have to agree with Robert regarding his view on the matter.

    The thought of a terrorist getting their hands on such a potentially deadly weapon is a scary one indeed.

    This information should be very closely guarded.

Mobile Theme